rnisdgkJ.TaiMr, 

HadiflOiinik 


AMERICAN  HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
CONVENTION  OF  1T87. 


BY 


JOHN    FRANKLIN    JAMESON, 

PUUFESSOR,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO. 


fFrom  the  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1902, 
Vol.  I,  pages  87-167.) 


WARHTNnTON: 

OOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE. 

1 '.*();;. 


AMERICAN   HISTORICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FEDKRAL 
CO.\VE.\TIOx\  OF  1787. 


BY 


JOHN     FRANKLIX    JAMESON, 

PROFESSOR,   I'NIVERSITY  OK  CHICAGO. 


From  the  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association  for  1902, 
Vol.  I,  pages  87-167,) 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING   OFFICE. 

1  ore;. 


SRLF 
URL 


lY.-STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
CONVENTION  OF  17X7. 


By  JOHN    FRANKLIN    JAMESON, 

Profrnaor,   I'liirn-sil;/  of  ('liirtKjn. 


STUDIES   IN   THE    HISTORY  OF  THE    FEDERAL  CONVENTION  OF 

1787. 


Bv  Prof.  .Iniix  Fkaxklix  Jameson. 


•  Of  the  papers  here  printed,  the  lirst  was  read  at  the  Phila- 
delphia iiieeting-  of  the  Association.  The  rest  owe  their  pres- 
ence here  to  the  merciful  in.stitution  known  as  "  leave  to 
print,""'  Most  of  them  are  merely  essays  in  ''  the  lower  criti- 
cism."" But  need  one  apologize  for  textual  criticism  in  such 
a  case^  Minute  and  technical  studies  respecting  transactions 
intrinsically  unimportant  may  justly  })e  disapproved.  But 
those  persons  who  agree  with  Darwin's  declaration  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon  migration  across  the  Atlantic  may  very  likely 
be  the  most  important  event  in  human  liistory  will  think  that 
the  minutiffi  of  the  Philadel})hia  Convention  are  as  well  de- 
servino'  of  elaboration  as  those  of  the  councils  of  Sardica  and 
Chalcedon—  not  to  say  Nicani  and  Trent.  An  age  which  every 
\'ear  prints  some  scores  of  pages  of  textual  criticism  of  the 
lives  of  Merovingian  .saints  can  surely  devote  a  few  to  the 
immediate  origins  of  the  American  Constitution,  though  it  be 
l)ut  to  "  settle  hoti'S  business."  The  following  is  a  list  of  the 
papers  comprising  the  series: 

J.  Letters  from  the  Federal  Convciitioii. 
71.  Lettei'H  not  heretofore  ])riiitt'(l. 

III.  List  of  letters  in  ])rint. 

IV.  The  text  of  the  Virginia  )>lan. 
V.  The  text  of  the  Pinckney  plan. 

VI.  The  text  of  the  New  Jersey  plan. 
\'ll.  The  text  of  Hamilton's  plan. 
VIIL  The  AVilsou  drafts  for  the  committee  of  detail. 
IX.  Members  who  did  not  sign. 
X.  The  action  of  the  States. 
XL  Journals  and  debates  of  the  State  conventions. 

Of  the  above   })apers,  tliose  nuiiiheretl    II    and    111    seem   to 

89 


V)0  AMEliU'AN    IIISTOIUCAL    ASSOCIATION. 

lu>  nooessiirv  :i(ljuncts  of  the  first;  NO.  \'11I  prcsonts  an  ini- 
jutitiint  n(Mvt(>\t:  NO.  IX  is  inlciulcd  to  iium>(  :im  apparent 
though  siiiall  need.  Of  X  and  XI,  which  aiv  bibliograph- 
ical in  their  ciiaractcr.  no  nion>  is  thouglit  than  that  they  may 
possibly  help  scune  weary  l)rolhei-.  I  venture  to  think  No.  V 
the  most  important. 


1.    LKTTKUS  FROM  TilK   FEDERAL  CONVENTION. 

There  is  certainly  no  lack  of  information  concerning  the 
doings  of  the  great  Federal  Convention  which  met  in  thiscit}^ 
one  hundred  and  fifteen  years  ago.  The  proceedings  of  each 
day  may  l)e  followed  in  the  journal  of  the  Convention  and  in 
the  invakialile  record  of  its  debates  kept  by  Madison — not  the 
least  of  the  man}"  pul)lic  sei  vices  for  which  we  are  indebted 
to  that  methodical  little  man.  Yet  I  think  it  not  hopeless  to 
attempt  to  derive  some  further  illustrations  of  its  history  from 
the  letters  written  ])v  various  of  the  members  durincj  the  con- 
ti nuance  of  its  sessions.  Such  as  they  are,  they  form  a  record 
no  less  authentic  than  the  official  journal,  and  even  more  strictl}" 
contemporaneous  than  Madison's  notes  in  the  form  in  which 
the  latter  ha\o  been  presented  to  us.  Moreover,  their  luim- 
ber  is  not  small.  About  eighty  have  been  printed,  in  whole 
or  in  part  or  in  summarj^,'^'  and  through  the  kindness  of  their 
owners  1  have  been  permitted  to  have  copies  of  a  considerable 
number  which  still  remain  in  manuscript.  It  is  true  that 
many,  if  not  most  of  them,  are  insignificant  for  the  present 
l)uri)ose.  It  is  also  true  that  their  contents  are  vastlv  less 
instructive  than  they  would  doubtless  have  been  if  the  Con 
\('ntion  had  not,  on  May  29,  adopted  as  one  of  its  formal  rules 
the  injunction  "that  nothing  spoken  in  the  House  be  printed 
or  otherwise  published  or  communicated  without  leave. "^ 
But  it  should  be  remembered  that  a  portion,  though  a  small 
portion,  of  the  transactions  of  the  Convention  preceded  this 
decree.  In  the  second  place,  not  every  member,  though  to 
be  sure  nearly  all,  observed  the  rule  with  the  utmost  strict- 
ness, (iilman  of  New  Hampshire,  excusable  perhaps  as  hav- 
ing arrived  very  late  and  but  a  few  days  before  the  date  of  the 


a  A  list  of  the  printed  letters  forms  No.  Ill  of  thi.s  .series  of  .studies.    In  tlie  footnotes  to 
this  first  paper  letters  are.  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  referred  to  by  their  numbers  on  that  list 
^  Documentary  Hi.story  of  the  Constitution.  I,  .'vl. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  91 

letter  quoted,  writes  to  his  cousin  Joseph,  with  un  ustonish- 
ing'  misconception  of  a  veiy  stringent  rule — 

As  sei'recy  is  not  otherwise  enjoined  than  as  prudence  may  dictate  to 
each  individual,  in  a  letter  to  my  brother  John,  of  the  28th  instant,  I 
gave  him  (for  the  satisfaction  of  two  or  three  who  will  not  make  it  public) 
a  hint  respecting  the  general  principles  of  the  plan  of  National  Government 
that  will  probably  be  handed  out — which  will  not  be  submitted  to  the  leg- 
islatures, but  after  the  approljation  of  Congress  to  an  assL'ml)ly  or  assem- 
blies of  representatives  recommended  by  the  several  legislatures,  to  be 
expressly  chosen  by  the  people  to  consider  and  decide  thereon." 

(The  letter  to  John  Ta3'lor  Gilman  seems  not  to  he  extant.) 
Other  members  felt  the  oblig-ation  of  the  rule  to  be  somewhat  re- 
laxed during-  the  later  portion  of  the  Conventioir.s  proceedings, 
when  the  great  questions  had  been  settled,  and  comnuinicated  to 
their  anxious  friends  some  notion  of  the  stage  which  had  ])een 
reached  in  the  transactions,  and  even  in  a  few  cases  some  hints 
of  the  contents  of  the  instrument  which  the}^  were  f  i-aming. 
Even  the  cautious  and  punctilious  Madison,  writing  on  the  Oth 
of  September,  feels  free  to  describe  the  Constitution  in  out- 
line to  his  correspondent,  because  that  correspondent  is  fletfer- 
son  in  Paris  and  the  Convention  is  evidently  within  a  few  da\'s 
of  adjournment.'^  Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  that  a  certain 
number  of  the  letters  are  addressed  b}'  members  remaining  in 
Philadelphia  to  meni])ers  who  have  gone  home,  or  vice  versa, 
and  in  these  we  tind.  as  we  might  expect,  a  greater  freedom 
of  utterance,''  A  notable  example  is  a  most  striking  lettei"  of 
Washington  to  Hamilton,  written  at  the  crisis  of  the  Con\'('n- 
tion.''     Put  of  this  later. 

Naturally  it  is  the  outwaixl  aspects  of  the  Convention  which 
ai'(^  most  largely  illusti-ated  by  these  letters.  Some  of  them 
exhibit  the  slowness  of  the  members  in  arriving  at  J^hiladel- 
phia — the  tedious  delays  in  securing  a  (piorum.'  ( )th(n's  relate 
the  comings  and  goings  of  such  as  did  not  remain  throughout 
the  entire  four  months.'"  It  would  in  most  casivs  \)o  j)ossiblc 
by  their  use  to  explain  the  al)sence  of  those  )uembers  whose 
names  are   not   sigricd  t(»  the    insti-unient,    vet    who   ai'e   not 


"No.  54. 

''  No.  75. 

'■Letters  of  members  to  members  are:  Nos.  C,  s,  VJ.  '.'l,  :V2,  :w,  i;*,  iV>,  (;:>,  CI,  (W,  70,  77. 

''No.  39. 

''Nos.  1,  4,  f>,  G,  9-13,  5-1.     No.  17  gives  a  li.st  of  Jiiembers. 

/Nos.  24,  27,  37,  42,  43,  4«,  49,  50,  bH,  5(5,  02,  03,  00,  G8. 


*J-J  AMKKICAN    HISTOKK'AI-    ASSOCIATION. 

niiiiUHl  as  amonti-  those  wlio  n>fus(>d  thoir  signatures/'  The 
most  interesting  of  the  U'tters  of  the  al)sent  is  that  in  which 
Hamilton  explains  to  Kufus  King  that  he  had  written  to  his 
rei-aleitrant  coHeagues  informing  them  that  if  either  of  them 
would  come  down  he  would  accompiuiy  him  to  New  York. 
"So  nuich."  he  says,  "for  the  sake  of  propriety  and  public 
opinion."  •"In  the  meantime."  he  adds,  "if  any  material 
alteration  should  happen  to  he  made  in  the  plan  now  before 
the  Convention.  1  will  be  ol)liged  to  you  for  a  comnumication 
of  it.  1  will  also  be  obliged  to  you  to  let  me  know  when  your 
conclusion  is  at  hand,  for  I  would  choose  to  be  present  at  that 
time."''  Later  he  writes  incpiiring  into  the  truth  of  the  rumor, 
current  in  New  York,  that  some  late  changes  in  the  scheme 
have  taken  place  "which  give  it  a  higher  tone." ^  Interest- 
ing also  are  those  letters  which  show  that  one  of  Major  Pierce's 
reasons  for  absence  was  the  expectation  of  fighting  a  duel,  in 
which  Hamilton  was  second  to  his  adversary. '^ 

Some  of  the  earlier  letters  show  the  anxieties  and  difficulties 
of  the  members  as  to  quarters.'  Some  of  them  went  into 
lodgings,  some  to  taverns.  A\' ashington  was  entertained  at 
the  house  of  Robert  Morris,  Mason  put  up  at  the  old  Indian 
Queen,  in  Fourth  street,  above  Chestnut,  where,  says  he — 

we  are  very  well  accommodated,  have  a  good  room  to  ourselves,  and  are 
charged  only  twenty-five  Pennsylvania  currency  per  day,  including  our 
servants  and  horses,  exclusive  of  club  in  liiiuors  and  extra  charges;  so  that 
I  hoi)e  T  shall  be  able  to  defray  my  expenses  with  my  public  allowance, 
and  more  than  that  I  do  not  wish./ 

As  time  went  on,  however,  and  the  proceedings  bade  fair  to 
be  prolonged  far  beyond  the  time  originally  expected,  not  a 
few  of  the  members  found  their  public  allowance  far  from 
sufficient,  and  letters  to  the  executives  of  th(^  States  asking 
for  remittances  to  meet  unexpected  expenses  are  not  infre- 
quent.!^   They  are  not  themselves  dissatisfied  that  the  work  is 


"This  lias  been  attempted,  by  means  of  these  letters  luid  other  sources  of  information 
in  Ko.  IX  of  this  series  of  papers,  pp.  157-160,  infra. 

ft  No.  63. 

cNo.  69. 

dNos.  48,49,50. 

«  Nos.  4,  6,  8. 

/No.  4.  That  Pierce  lodged  at  this  same  hostelry  appears  from  his  statement  in  a 
memorandum  printed  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  III,  328.  Madison  and  Charles 
Pinckney  lodged  in  the  same  house  with  each  other  (Madison's  Letters,  IV,  203);  so 
probably  did  Read  and  Dickinson  (No.  8). 

»Nos.  18,22,  23,  41,  ."il,  .=)3. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTIOlSr    OF    1787.  98 

beino-  done  deliberately."  but  Madison  twice  writes  Jefferson 
that  the  public  mind  is  ^■er^'  impatient  for  the  event.*  Early 
in  July  there  is  a  prediction  that  the  delegates  will  be 
detained  till  the  middle  of  August.'"  Before  the  end  of  Jul}' 
the  1st  of  September  is  talked  of  as  the  time  of  release.  ^'  By 
the  middle  of  August  a  continuance  till  the  middle  of  Septem- 
ber bBgins  to  be  foreseen.* 

Something  of  the  social  life  of  the  members  transpires  in  the 
letters/  though  not  so  much  as  in  Washington's  diary.  '■'  The 
daih'  dinners  and  tea-drinkings  which  that  much-enduring  man 
tranquilly  records  wore  desperately  upon  the  country-loving 
and  less  patient  spirit  of  George  Mason.  He  had  been  but 
ten  days  in  Philadelphia  when  he  wrote: 

I  begin  to  grow  heartily  tired  of  the  etiquette  and  nonsense  so  fashion- 
able in  this  city.  It  Avonld  take  me  some  months  to  make  myself  master 
of  them,  and  that  it  should  require  months  to  learn  what  is  not  worth 
remembering  as  many  minutes  is  to  me  so  discouraging  a  circumstance  as 
determines  me  to  give  myself  no  manner  of  troul)le  about  them.'' 

It  is  not  illegitimate  to  dcrixe  a  little  anuisement  from  the 
comparison  of  two  letters  of  Franklin.'  The  one  (corrobo- 
rated by  Washington's  diary)  shows  that  he  entertained  the 
members  at  dinner  on  the  16th  of  May,  two  days  after  the 
date  on  Avhich  the  Convention  should  have  begim  its  sessions. 
The  other,  in  which  he  is  describing  to  his  sister  the  recent 
enlargements  of  his  house,  tells  her  that  his  new  dining-room 
enables  him  to  have  a  dinner-party  of  twenty-four.  As  presi- 
dent of  Pennsylvania,  the  sagacious  doctor  nuist  dine  the 
dek'gates;  but,  born  not  in  vain  in  Yankee  land,  he  placed 
his  invitation  early,  when  not  half  the  delegates  had  arrived. 
It  was  not  his  fault  that  they  were  so  slow  in  assembling.  As 
nearlv  as  it  can  l)e  calculated,  there  nuist  have  Ikmmi  just  about 


"Xos.  23,61. 

'>  Xos.  J4,  "o. 

■•  No.  35. 

'I  Nos.  46,  51.  .       _ 

f  Nos.  58,  59,  62,  &. 

/Ncs.  2,  11,  14,  28. 

(/Washington's  diary  for  the  period  of  tlie  Convoiilion  exists  in  two  forms.  The 
Library  of  Cong:ress  possesses  a  volume,  whieli,  acecirdiiif,'  to  its  Calendar  of  Washington 
Manuscripts  (pp.  65,  66),  "is  probably  the  original  notebook  from  which  the  amplified 
diary,  now  in  the  Department  of  State,  was  written  at  a  later  period."  Its  text  for  the 
l)eriod  in  question  was  printed,  with  omi.>vsions,  in  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History, 
XI,  296-308.  From  llie  diary  in  its  finished  form,  preserved  at  the  Department  of  State, 
e-xtracts  have  been  printed  by  SparKs  (IX,  .53,S-.')41)  and  by  Fonl  (XI,  Mt)-155). 

ft  No.  n. 

I  Nos.  2,  1 1. 


\)4  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    A'SSOCIATION. 

tAVoiity-foui'  incmhors  in  town  on  the  16th;  two  da_ys  later 
thov  would  li:i\  (■  hcoii.  in  ;i  pvo])oi'  sonso.  ono  too  many  for 
him. 

But  nuich  nioic  ini[H)rt!iiit  thing-.s  than  these  are  to  be  found 
in  the  letters.  Beginning  with  the  earliest  letters,  we  catch 
gHmpses  of  those  private  and  preparatory  consultations  of 
which  the  official  records  tell  us  nothing.  ''The  Virginia 
deputies  (who  are  all  here),"  says  Mason,  Avriting  in  the  days 
when  a  quorum  had  not  yet  come  together,  *'  meet  and  confer 
together  two  or  three  hours  every  dav,  in  order  to  form  a 
proper  correspondence  of  sentiments;  and  for  form's  sake,  to 
see  what  new  d(>puties  are  arrived,  and  to  grow  into  some 
acquaintance  with  each  other,  we  [that  is,  the  Convention] 
regularly  meet  every  da.y  at  3  o'clock. "«  The  ordinary  hours 
of  meeting,  by  the  way,  are  stated  hj  one  member  as  being 
from  10  o'clock  till  1.''  Franklin  writes  to  his  sister,  imme- 
diateh"  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention: 

I  attended  the  business  of  it  live  hours  in  every  day  from  the  beginning, 
which  is  something  more  than  four  months.  You  may  judge  from  thence 
tliat  my  health  continues;  some  tell  me  I  look  better,  and  they  suppose 
the  daily  exercise  of  going  and  returning  from  the  statehouse  has  done  me 
good.  ''■ 

Washington  in  his  diary  speaks  of  "not  less  than  live,  for 
a  large  part  of  the  time  six,  and  sometimes  seven  hours, 
sitting  ever}'  day." 

l>ut  to  return  to  the  earliest  duxH  of  the  Convention.  It 
Avill  be  remembered  that  soon  after  the  Randolph  or  Vii-ginia 
plan  was  presented  Charles  Pincknc}-,  of  South  Carolina,  pre- 
sented a  i)lan,  and  also  that  it  has  wholly  disappeared,'^  for 
that  which  is  printed  in  the  journal  under  his  name  is  demon- 
strably something  quite  different.  Now,  a  letter  written  in 
those  earlv  days  before  a  quorum  had  been  obtained  gives  an 


nSo.  4.. 

'•Xo.  62.  The  journal,  however,  shows  these  hours  as  definitely  fixed  during  only  the 
period  from  August  18  to  August  2i.  See  No.  G".  After  that  the  hours  were  from  10  to  3. 
From  May  28  to  .Iiuie  2  the  hour  of  meeting  was  10  o'elock,  from  June  4  to  August  18 
11  o'clock,  but  without  specified  liour  for  adjournment.  Documentary  History,  I,  132, 
l.')4;  III,  .WJ,  t;  13,  et  passim. 

<-Xo.  Hi.  Wiitson,  Annal.s,  ed.  IS'Jl,  I,  402,  .says  that  the  municipal  authorities  covered 
the  street  pavement  outside  the  statehouse  with  earth  to  silence  the  rattling  of  wheeLs 
during  the  time  of  the  Convention.  In  the  DocumeiUary  History,  I,  280,  is  printed  a 
communicatiiin  from  the  Library  ('cmipany  of  I'liihidelphia,  extending  the  privilege  of 
drawing  books  lo  the  members  of  tlu-  Convention  during  its  continuance. 

<'So  it  was  universally  supposed  at  the  time  when  this  p>aper  was  read;  but  see  i)p. 
128,132,  infra,  and  the  American  Historical  Review,  VIII,  509-511. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  95 

outline  of  a  plan  which  the  writer  of  the  letter  had  seen  and 
c-opied,  and  which,  though  he  doe.s  not  give  the  author's  name, 
can  be  demonstrated  to  have  been  Pinckney'.s,  which  accord- 
ing'l}^  was  in  existence  as  early  as  Ma}'  20/' 

The  events  of  the  first  days'  proceedings  of  the  Convention 
are  not  related  in  a  manner  different  from  that  of  the  journal; 
but  the  letters  show  much  of  the  spirit  which  the  delegates 
manifested  at  the  beginning  of  their  labors,  of  the  various 
expectations  which  they  and  others  formed  concerning  their 
work,  and  of  the  prevalent  notions  as  to  what  it  should  be.'^ 
If  George  Mason's  estimate  was  correct,  the  prevailing  opinion 
at  the  beg-inning  of  the  sessions  was  in  favor  of  a  total  reno- 
vation  of  the  existing  articles  and  a  government  at  least  as 
strongl}^  centralized  as  that  which  was  outlined  in  the  Vir- 
ginia resolutions  soon  after  presented/'  But  it  should  be  said 
that  his  estimate  was  formed  at  a  time  when  tlie  large  States 
were  more  fully  represented  in  Philadelphia  than  the  small. 
The  spirit  in  which  the  work  was  begun  was  ol)\  iously  marked 
by  the  expectation  and  the  desire  of  harmony.  Many  passages 
declare,  forcibly  and  even  eloquently,  the  writers"  sense  of  the 
mao-nitude  of  the  occasion  and  of  the  critical  situation  in 
which  the  United  States  stood. ^'  Fierce  in  his  notes,  published 
a  few  vears  ago,  speaks  of  himself  as  having  occupied  ''a  seat 
in  the  wisest  council  in  the  world." '  Johnson,  of  Connecticut, 
a  graver  man,  tells  his  son  that  the  assembly  includes  many 
of  the  ablest  men  in  America,'^  while  liobert  Morris  Avrites  to 
his  sons  in  Germany  that  they  ought  to  pray  for  a  successful 
issue  to  the  Convention's  lalwrs.  ''as  the  result  is  to  be  a  foiiu 
of  government  under  which  you  are  U)  li\'e,  and  in  the  admin- 
istration of  which  you  may  probabh'  hereafter  have  a  share, 
provided  you  ([ualify  yourselves  by  up])lication  to  3'our 
studies,'"''  and  one  of  the  North  Carolina  (hdegates  takes  satis- 
faction in  believing  that  they  have  contributed  to  the  lKi])pi- 
ness  of  millions, ''^ 

The  situation  of  the  General  Government  [wrote  Wasliington],  if  it  can 
lie  called  a  governiiiciit.  is  .■<iiakoii  to  its  foundation  an<l  liable  to  he  over- 
turned l)y  every  hlast.  In  a  word,  it  is  at  an  end,  and  unless  a  remedy  is 
soon  applied  anarchy  and  confusion  will  inevitahly  ensue.  ' 


"  No.  C.     Sec  pp.  119, 120,  infra. 

■    /No.  29. 

('Nos.  4,  .5,  '.),  15,  10,  IS. 

(7  No.  28. 

c-No.  5. 

/( No.  06. 

dNos.  10,  15,  16,  21,  28,  60,  06. 

'■  No.  15. 

<-' American  Historical  Review, 

HI, 

33t. 

*,»()  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

No  niombcr  of  tho  Convoution  was  less  inclined  to  rhotor- 
ical  oxatii>-onition  than  Goor<>o  IVIason;  nono  siii-passed  him  in 
the  gift  of  a  terse  and  niasculim^  eloiiiience. 

Ainerii-a  [he  writei^  t<>  liis  son]  ha^^  certainly  upon  this  occayion  (ha\vn 
forth  her  first  characters.  There  are  u|Min  this  Convention  many  gentle- 
men of  the  most  respectable  abilities  and,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  of  the 
j>nrest  intentions.  The  eyes  of  the  Ignited  States  are  turned  upon  this 
assembly  and  their  expectations  raised  to  a  very  anxious  degree.  May 
God  grant  we  may  be  able  to  gratify  them  by  establishing  a  wise  and  just 
government.  For  my  own  part  I  never  before  felt  myself  in  such  a  situa- 
tion, and  declare  I  would  not,  upon  pecuniary  motives,  serve  in  this  Con- 
vention for  a  thousand  pounds  per  day.  The  revolt  from  Great  Britain 
and  the  formations  of  our  new  governments  at  that  time  were  nothing  com- 
l^ared  to  the  great  business  now  before  us.  There  was  then  a  certain  degree 
of  enthusiasm  whicli  inspired  and  supi)orted  the  mind;  but  to  view 
through  the  calm,  sedate  medium  of  reason  the  influence  which  the 
establishment  now  jjroposed  may  have  ujion  the  happiness  or  misery  of 
millions  yet  unborn  is  an  object  of  such  magnitude  as  al)sorbs,  and  in  a 
measun'  suspends,  the  (operations  of  the  lunnan  luidenstanding." 

It  may  naturally  be  supposed  that  the  hopefulness  with 
M'hich  tlie  Convention  Ijegan  its  work  was  overclouded  by  the 
discordant  debates  which  marked  the  last  days  of  June  and 
the  first  days  of  Jnl^',  days  in  which  it  long  seemed  impossible 
to  bring  into  any  agreement  the  conflicting  desires  of  the  large 
and  the  small  States.  Several  extant  letters  show  that  this 
was  plainly  felt  to  be  the  great  crisis  of  the  Convention,  in 
which  the  danger  of  breaking  up  without  result  was  immi- 
nent/' Most  strikingly  is  this  shoAvn  by  the  letter  of  Wash- 
ington to  Hamilton  already  alluded  to. 

When  I  refer  you  [he  says]  to  the  state  of  the  counsels  which  jire- 
vailed  at  the  period  you  left  the  city  [some  ten  days  before]  and  add  that 
they  are  now,  if  jjossible,  in  a  worse  train  than  ever,  you  will  find  but  lit- 
tle ground  on  which  the  hope  of  a  good  establishment  can  be  formed.  In 
a  word,  I  almost  despair  of  seeing  a  favoral)le  issue  to  the  proceedings  of 
our  Convention,  and  do  therefore  repent  liaving  had  any  agency  in  the 
business.  *  *  *  J  am  sorry  you  went  away.  1  wish  you  were  back. 
The  crisis  is  equally  important  and  alarming,  and  no  opposition,  under 
such  circumstances,  should  discourage  exertions  till  the  signature  is 
offered. « 

As  has  already  been  said,  in  the  later  months  of  the  Con- 
vention one  finds  in  the  correspondence  occasional  disclosures 
as  to  the  stage  ivached  in  the  proceedings.  But  these  add 
nothing  to  what  is  in  the  joui-md,  except  the  evidences  of 
relief-  when,   the    main    outlines  of  the  Constitution  havino- 

"No.  111.  '' Nos.  :!0-:i:i,  ;;;i.  '-No.;;!), 


THE    FEDERAL    COlSrVENTIOISf    OF    1787.  \)7 

been  completed,  it  had  been  handed  over  to  the  Committee  of 
Detaih"  More  interesting-  are  the  letters  in  which  linits  re- 
specting the  Constitution  its(^lt'  are  conveyed. 

It  is  not  probable  [writes  one  of  tlie  North  Carolina  delegates,  August 
12]  that  the  United  States  will  in  future  be  so  ideal  as  to  risk  their  happi- 
ness upon  the  unanimity  of  the  Avhole,  and  thereby  put  it  in  the  power  of 
one  or  J;wo  States  to  defeat  the  most  salutary  propositions  and  prevent  the 
Union  from  rising  out  of  that  contemptible  situation  to  which  it  is  at 
present  reduced/' 

Gihnan's  disclosures  as  to  the  process  of  ratitication  have 
alread}^  been  mentioned.  Madison,  after  outlining  to  .Jeffer- 
son the  powers  proposed  to  be  conferred  on  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, remarks: 

The  extent  of  them  may  perhaps  surprise  you.  i  hazard  an  npiuion, 
nevertheless,  that  the  plan,  should  it  he  adopte<l,  will  luiihci- effectually 
answer  its  national  object  nor  prevent  the  local  mischiefs  which  every- 
where excite  disgust  against  tlie  State  governments.  < 

As  the  Convention  draws  to  its  close  several  menduM's,  look- 
ing forward  to  the  action  of  Congress  upon  it,  express  to  the 
authorities  of  their  States  an  anxiety  tliat  the  latter  shall  main- 
tain an  ade(piate  representation  in  Congress,  in  order  that  that 
body  may  act  promptly,  and  get  the  Constitution  befori'  the 
State  legislatures  at  their  autumnal  sessions.''  One  of  the  last 
letters  is  one  in  which  Dickinson,  writing  to  Read,  authorizes 
the  latter  to  sign  his  name  to  the  Constitution,  as  he  wishes 
to  leave  a  few  days  before  the  close.'  I  am  informed  by  Mr. 
Andrew  H.  Allen,  the  official  custodian  of  the  original  docu- 
ment, that  Dickinson's  signature  to  it  is  undoubtedly  wiitteii 
in  Read's  hand.  Finally  comes  the  brief  note  in  which  Maj. 
^^'iHiam  Jackson,  secretary  of  the  Convention,  informs  Gen- 
eral Washington  that — 

Major  .Jackson,  after  burning  all  loose  scraps  of  paper  which  belong  ti> 
the  Convention,  will  this  evening  wait  U])on  the  (leneral  with  the  journals 
and  other  papers  which  their  vote  directs  to  be  delivered  to  his  excellency 
Monday  evening./ 

"Nas.  34,  46.56,  58,  65,68. 

b  No.  58. 

cNo.  75. 

dNos.  34,  62,  65. 

eNo.  77. 

/No.  78.  From  a  conversation  willi  .Fiickson  in  l.si.s,  which  .lnhn  tiuincy  .Xdains 
recor(J.s,  Memoirs,  IV,  175,  it  appears  tliat  .(aekson  did  preserve  extensive  7iiinutes  of  tlie 
debates  of  the  Convention.  Possibly  these  are  still  extant;  see  Appleton's  Cye.  Biog., 
s.  v.,  but  also  Pa.  Mag.  Hist.,  II.  3.53. 

II.  Doc.  4(;i.  pt  1 7 


98  AMKKICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Agrouj)  ot"  li>tt(M-s  which  in  strit-tnoss  falls  outside  the  pres- 
ent suhject,  yet  which  ])res(Mits  much  the  sjune  sort  of  interest, 
is  that  of  the  letters  written  by  nienil)ei-s  in  the  next  day  or 
two  after  the  adjoui-nuuMit.  General  Washington  transmits 
a  copy  of  the  Constitution  to  Lafayette,  with  a  brief  note: 

It  is  till.'  ivsult  lit  four  iiioiitlhs'  (U'liberatiun  [he  says].  It  is  now  ac'liil<l 
of  fortune,  to  be  fostered  by  some  and  buffeted  by  others.  What  will  be 
the  general  opinion  or  the  rece]ition  of  it  is  not  for  me  to  decide,  nor  shal] 
I  say  anythintf  for  or  against  it.  If  it  l)e  good,  T  suppose  it  will  work  its 
way;  if  hud.  it  will  recoil  on  tlie  framers." 

Kandol})h  sends  a  co[)V  to  Beverley  Randolph,  the  lieutenant- 
governor,  who  had  beeti  taking  his  place  as  head  of  the  execu- 
tive of  Virginia  during  his  absence;  and  adds,  in  a  sentence 
characteristic  of  his  tortuous  mind: 

Altho'  the  names  of  Col.  Mason  and  myself  are  not  subscribed,  it  is  not 
therefore  to  be  concluded  that  we  are  opposed  to  its  adoption.  Our  rea- 
sons for  not  subscribing  will  be  better  explained  at  large,  and  on  a  personal 
interview,  than  by  letter.'' 

The  UKMubers  from  North  Carolina  are  careful  to  explain 
promptly  to  their  governor  how  completely  the  interests,  and 
especially  the  pecuniary  interests,  of  North  Carolina  have  been 
safeguarded  by  the  gi'eat  compromises  and  by  some  of  the 
minor  provisions  of  the  proposed  Constitution.''  The  series 
fitly  ends  with  a  letter  of  Madison  to  Edmund  Pendleton,  in 
which  he  sums  up  in  a  sentence  the  history  of  the  Convention: 

The  double  object  of  lilending  a  proper  stability  and  energy  in  the  Gov- 
ernment with  the  essential  characters  of  tbe  republican  form,  and  of  trac- 
ing a  proper  line  of  demarcation  between  tlie  national  and  State  authorities, 
was  necessarily  fouml  to  be  as  difficult  as  it  was  desirable,  and  to  admit  of 
an  infinite  diversity  concerning  the  means  among  those  who  were  unani- 
mously agreed  concerning  the  end.'' 

II.  I.KTTEKS  NOT  HERETOFORE  PRINTED. 

1.  David  Brearldj  to  Jotuithin  Dayton  {extract).  * 

Philadelphia,  D"'  Jmw  1787. 
Dkau  Sir:     *     *     *     We  have  been  in  a  Conunittee  of  the 
Whole  for  some  time,  and  have  under  consideration  a  number 


n  No.  ^. 
''No.  82. 
fNo.  79. 
''No.  8.1. 

"From  a  copy  kin<lly  fiirnishcl  by  .Mr.  Simon  Gratz,  of  Philadelphia,  who  po.ssesses 
the  original  uianu.script. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION"    OF   1787.  99 

of  very  important  propositions,  none  of  which,  however,  have 
as  yet  been  reported.  My  colleagues,  as  well  as  myself,  arc 
verj'  desirous  that  you  should  join  us  immediately."  The 
importance  of  the  business  really  demands  it. 

2.  Daoid  Brearley  to  Will  him  Patet'son.  ^' 

Philadelphia  21  A  luj.  1787. 

Dear  Sir:  1  was  in  hopes  after  the  Committee  had  reported, 
that  we  should  have  been  aljle  to  have  published  [?  linished] 
by  the  first  of  September,  at  present  I  have  no  prospect  of 
our  getting-  through  l)efore  the  latter  end  of  that  month. 
Every  article  is  again  argued  over,  with  as  much  earnestness 
and  obstinacy  as  before  it  was  conmiitted.  We  have  lately 
made  a  rule  to  meet  at  ten  and  sit  'til  four,  which  is  punctually 
complied  with.  Cannot  you  come  down  and  assist  us, — we 
have  many  reasons  for  desiring  this;  our  duty,  in  the  manner 
we  now  sit,  is  quite  too  hard  for  three,'"  but  a  much  stronger 
reason  is,  that  we  actually  stand  in  need  of  your  al)ilities. 

I  am,   most  respectfully,  dear  sir,  your  obedient  humble 

servant 

David  Brearley. 

3.  Extract  from  tlie  Petnisi/l  noila  Journal.'^ 

We  are  informed,  that  many  letters  have  T)een  written  to 
the  members  of  the  f federal  convention  from  different  (juar- 
ters,  respecting  the  reports  idly  circidating,  that  it  is  intended 
to  establish  a  monarchical  government,  to  send  for  the  bishop 
of  Osnahurgh,  &c.,  &e. — to  which  it  has  been  uniformly  an- 
swered, tho'  we  cannot,  affirmatively,  tell  you  what  we  are 
doing,  we  can,  negatively,  tell  you  what  we  are  not  doing — 
we  never  once  thought  of  a  king. 

"Dayton  took  his  seat  June  21.  Brearley,  Houston,  Paterson,  and  Livingston  were 
already  present  at  the  time  wlieii  the  letter  was  written. 

''  From  a  eopy  finnid  among  tlie  MSS.  of  George  Baiieroft  at  the  Lcmo.k  Library,  "  Pat- 
erson MSS.,"  p.  603.  There  seems  to  be  no  evidenee  of  Pater.son's  presence  from  .Inly  23 
to  the  time  of  signing  the  Constitution.    Documentary  History,  III,  -105. 

'■I.  e.,  Brearley,  Livingston,  and  Dayton.  Documentary  History,  I,  HO,  Ml;  III,  561, 
f^lA,  .=S9C. 

''Of  ,\ugust  21.  1787.  Mentioned  in  Curtis,  Histf)ry  of  tlie  Formation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, II,  49.5,  and  Constitutional  History,  I,  (V2ti.  I  have  ]in>cure<l  a  copy  of  it  and  inserted 
it  here  mainly  that  it  may  be  seen  not  to  be  an  individual  letter,  though  its  phrases  are 
taken  from  one  written  two  days  hefore  by  Governor  Martin,  letter  No.  65.  Upon  its  sub- 
ject, see  Humphreys  to  Hamilton,  in  the  hitter's  works,  cd.  Hamilton,  I,  442;  Hamilton's 
History  of  the  Republic,  III,  331:  J.  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  A.  Hamilton,  II,  535. 


100  AMERICAN     HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

.f.  2^at1i(tii!('l  (rorhdin  to  Cahh  Strong."' 

PrirLADELPHIA  Ai((j'  '20 

My  Dear  Sh:  I  ice''  your  fiivour  from  N  York  uiul  was 
pleased  to  liiul  that  you  had  o-ol  on  so  well,  inclosed  is  a 
Letter  that  came  to  hand  for  you.  We  liave  now  under 
eonsidiM'ation  tln^  IS'"' Article  which  i>  that  the  United  States 
shall  ouarantee,  iScc.  &c.'' 

I  am  in  hopes  we  shall  be  done?  in  about  20  days.  There 
are  several  things  refei'i'ed  which  will  take  some  time. 

Keinember  me  to  our  friend  Sedgwick. 

-7.   rfdiKifJiitii  Ddijlon  to  (f( )).   Ettas  I>(ii/ton  {extract).'' 

Philadelphia,  Sej>t.  .9,  17S7. 
Dear  Sir:  *  '■"•'  "'•■  We  have  happily  so  far  tinished  our 
business,  as  to  be  employed  in  giving  it  its  last  polish  and 
preparing  it  for  the  public  inspection.  This,  1  conclude,  ma}' 
be  done  in  three  or  four  days,  at  which  time  the  public  curi- 
osity and  our  desire  of  returning  to  our  respective  homes,  will 
equally  b(^.  gratitied. 

III.  LIST  OF  LETTERS  IN  PRINT. 

The  following  is  intended  as  a  list  of  letters  to  be  found  in 
print,  written  by  members  of  the  Philadelphia  convention 
during  its  sessions,  whether  the  same  are  perceived  to  have 
any  importance  to  history  or  not.  Letters  printed  only  in 
extract  or  in  summary  are  included,  and  also  some  letters 
of  importance  written  just  after  the  adjournment.  On  the 
other  hand,  letters  written  by  meml)ers  before  they  arrived  in 
Philadelphiii,  though  after  the  opening  of  the  convention,  are 
not  included: 

1.  May   15.  Madison  to  Jefferson.     LetterH  and  other  Writings,  1,328. 

2.  May   LS.   Franklin  to  Thomas  Jordan.     Works,   ed.   Sparks,   X,  304; 

e<L  Bigelow,  IX,  386. 

3.  ;May   18.  Franklin  to  (Jeorge  Whatley.     Works,  ed.   Sparks,  X,  306; 

ed.  Bigelow,  IX,  388. 


"The  original  of  this  letter  is  posse.s.sed  by  the  Hi.storical  and  Natural  History  Society 
of  South  Natick,  Mass.  A  copy  was  kindly  furnished  by  Gustavus  Smith,  esq.,  president 
of  the  society. 

'> Consideration  of  article  18  of  the  report  of  tlie  coniniittee  of  detail  wa.s  not  begun, 
according  to  the  journal,  until  the  session  of  August  :!0  wuh  well  advanced.  Documentary 
History,  I,  VVj. 

<^Frorn  a  copy  kindly  sent  by  Mr.  Simon  (irat/,  owner  of  tlie  original. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1TS7.  lUl 

4.  May  20.  Masou  to  George  Mason,  jr.     Miss  Eovvlaiid's  Mason,  II,  100; 

Hart,  Contemporaries,  III,  20:^;  extract  in  Bancroft,  Con- 
stitution, II,  421. 

5.  May  21.  Mason  to  Arthur  Lee.     Lee's  Arthur  Lee,  11,  319;  Rowland, 

II,  102. 

6.  May  21.   Read  to  John  Dickinson.     Read's  George  Read,  p.  443. 

7.  May  24.  Randolph    to    Beverley   Randolph.      Calendar   of   Virginia 

State  Papers,  TV,  289. 

8.  May  25.   Read  to  John  Dickinson.     Brotlierhead,  Book  of  the  Signers, 

186] ,  p.  63. 

9.  May  27.   Madison  to  Ednunid  Pendleton.     Letters,  I,  328. 

10.  May  27.  Madison  to  James  Madison,  sr.     Letters,  I,  329. 

11.  May  27.  Mason  to  George  Mason,  jr.     Rowland,  TI,  103. 

12.  May  27.  Randolph   to   Beverley    Randol[)h.      Calendar   of    Virginia 

State  Papers,  IV,  290. 

13.  May   30.  Davie  to  James  Iredell.     iMcRee,  Life  of  Iredell,  II,  161. 

14.  May   30.  Franklin  to  Mrs.  Jane  Mecom.     Works,  ed.   Bigelow,  IX, 

392. 

15.  May   30.  Washington  to  Jefferson.     Sparks,  IX,  254;  Ford,  XI,  156. 

16.  June    1.  Mason  to  George  Mason,  jr.     Rowlaixl.  II,  128;  extract  in 

Bancroft,  II,  424. 

17.  June    6.  IMadison  to  Jefferson.     T^^tters,  T,  330. 

18.  June    6.  Randolph  to  Beverley  Randoli)h.     Calendar  of  Virginia  State 

Papers,  IV,  293. 

19.  June    9.   Brearlej'  to  Jonathan  Dayton.     See  j).  9cS,  supra. 

20.  June  10.  Madison  to  Monroe.     Extract  in  "  Wiishington-Madison  Pa- 

pers" (McGuire  sale  catalogue),  p.  129. 

21.  Jime  11.  Gerry  to  ^Monroe.     Extract  in  Bancroft,  II,  428. 

22.  June  12.  Spaight  to  Governor  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  723. 

23.  June  14.  Four  N.  C.  delegates  to  Caswell.     X.  C.  Records,  XX,  723. 

24.  June  Ki.   Wythe  to  Edmund  Randolph.     From  Williamsburg.     Sum- 

marized in  the  Calendar  of  the  Emmei  (.'ollection,  No. 
9542. 

25.  June  19.  Davie  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  725. 

26.  June  19.  Davie  to  James  Iredell.     .McRee's  Iredell,  II,  161. 

27.  June  21.  Randolph  to  Beverley  Randolph.     Calendar  of  Virginia  State 

Papers,  IV,  298. 

28.  June  25.  Robert  Morris  to  his  sons.     Extract  in  Pennsylvania  Maga- 

zituw.f  History,  IT,  170. 

29.  June  27.  Johnson  to  his  son.     Extract  iu  Bancroft,  H,  430. 

30.  June  30.  Mason  to  Beverley  Randolph.     Rowland,  II,  131;  Calendar 

of  Virginia  State  Paiiers,  IV,  310. 

31.  July      1.   Washington  to  David  Stuart.     Sjjarks,  IX,  257;  Ford,  XI, 

159. 

32.  July     3.  Hamilton  to  Washington.     From  New  York.     J.  C  Hamil- 

ton, Life  of  A.  Hamilton,  11,522;  AVorks,  ed.  Hamilton,  I, 
435;  ed.  Lodge,  VIII,  175;  Hamilton's  Reimblic,  HI,  317; 
Sparks,  Letters  to  Washington,  IV,  172;  Hunt,  Madison, 

III,  351. 


102  AMERICAN   HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

33.  July     3.  ypaiirht  to  TmU'll.     :\I(Kee,  Iredell,  T  I,  162. 

34.  July     7.  Four  North  Carolina  delegates  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records, 

XX,  733. 

35.  July     S.  Williamson  to  Iredell.     McRee,  II,  163. 

36.  July     9.   Washington  to  Ilt'otor  St.  John  de  Crevecoeur.     Sparks,  IX, 

259. 

37.  July    10.  Blount  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  734. 

38.  July   10.  Blount  to  William  Constable.     N.  C.  Record.s,  XX,  734. 

39.  July   10.   AVashington  to  Hamilton.     Sparks,  IX,  260;  Ford,  XI,  162; 

J.  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  A.  Hamilt(m,  II,  527;  Hamilton's 
Works,  ed.  Hamilton,  I,  437;  Hamilton,  Republic,  111,322. 

40.  July  12.  Blount  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  739. 

41.  July  12.  Randolph  to  Beverley  Randolph.     Calendar  of  Virginia  State 

Tapers,  IV,  315. 

42.  July  16.   Wythe  to  Beverley  Randolph.     From  Williamsburg.    Broth- 

erhead,  Centennial  Book  of  the  Signers,  1876,  p.  257. 

43.  July  17.  Davie  to  Iredell.     AIcRee,  II,  165. 

44.  July   IS.   Madison  to  Jefferson.     Letters,  I,  333. 

45.  July  19.  Washington  to  R.  H.  Lee.     Lee's  R.  H.  Lee,  II,  35;  Sparks, 

IX,  261;  Ford,  XI,  163. 

46.  July  22.   Williamson  to  Iredell.     McRee,  II,  167. 

47.  July  23.  Sherman  to  Timothy  Pickering.    Summarized  in  6  Mass.  Hist. 

,    Soc.  Coll.,  VIII,  451. 

48 Hamilton  to .    Works,  ed.  Hamilton,  I,  437;  ed.  Lodge, 

VIII,  176. 
49 Hamilton  to  William  Pierce.     Writings,  ed.  Lodge,  VIII,  177. 

50.  July  26.  Hamilton   to   Auldjo.     Works,    ed.    Hamilton,    I,  .439;   ed. 

Lodge,  VIII,  178. 

51.  July  27.  Alexander  Martin  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  753. 

52.  July  28.  Madison  to  James  Madison,  sr.     Letters,  I,  335. 

53.  July  30.  Strong  to  Alexander  Ilodgdon,  treasurer  of  Massachusetts. 

Summarized  in  the  Calendar  of  the  Enmiet  Collection,  No. 
545. 

54.  July  31.  Gilman  to  Joseph  Gilman.     N.  H.  State  Papers,  XXI,  835. 

55.  Aug.     5.  McClurg   to   Madison.     From   Richmond.     Summarized   in 

Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library,  IV,  487. 

56.  Aug.    6.  Davie  to  Iredell.     McRee,  II,  167. 

57.  Aug.  12.  Madison  to  James  Madison,  sr.     Summarized  in  Bulletin  of 

the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  Library,  IV,  68. 

58.  Aug.  12.  Spaight  to  Iredell.     McRee,  II,  168. 

59.  Aug.  13.  (ierry  to  Gen.  James  Warren.     Austin,  Life  of  Gerry,  II,  36. 

60.  Aug.  15.  Wa.shington  to  Lafayette.     Sparks,  IX,  262;  extract  in  Ford, 

XI,  162. 

61.  Aug.  19.  Washington  to  Knox.     Sparks,  IX,  264. 

62.  Aug.  20.  Blount  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  764. 

63.  Aug.  20.  Hamilton  to  Rufus  King.     J.  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  A.  Ham- 

ilton,  II,  533;  Works,  ed.  Hamilton,  I,  4.39;  ed.  Lodge, 
VII,  178;  Hamilton,  Republic,  III,  329;  King's  King, 
I,  258. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  103 

64.  Aug.  20.   Hamilton  to  Jeremiah  Watlswoith.     Works,  e«l.  Hamilton, 

I,  440;  eel.  Lodge,  VIII,  171*. 

65.  Aug.  20.  Alexander  Martin  to  Caswell.     X.  V.  Records,  XX,  763. 

66.  Aug.  20.   Williamson  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records,  XX,  765. 

67.  Aug.  21.  Brearley  to  William  Paterson.     See  p.  99,  supra. 

68.  Aug.  23.  Davie  to  Caswell.     From  Halifax,   N.   C.     N.   C.   Records, 

XX,  766. 

69.  Aug.  2S.  Hamilton  to  Rufus  King.     J.  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  A.  Ham- 

ilton, }I,  SMo;  Wcjrks,  ed.  Hamilton,  I,  441;  ed.  Lodge, 
VIII,  179;  Hamilton,  Republic,  III,  329;  King's  King,  I, 
258. 

70.  Aug.  29.  Gorham  to  Caleb  Strong.     See  p.  100,  supra. 

71.  Sept.    2.  Randolph  to  Beverley  Randolph.     Calendar  of  Virginia  State 

Papers,  IV,  338. 

72.  Sept.    3.  Oilman  to  John  Sullivan.     N.  H.  State  Papers,  XVIII,  790. 

73.  Sept.     3.   Pierce  to  Don  Diego  de  Gardoqui.     From  New  York.     New 

Jersey  Journal,  November  28,  1787;  Carey's  American 
Museum,  II,  583. 

74.  Sept.    4.  Madison  to  James  Madison,  sr.     Letters,  I,  336. 

75.  Sept.     ().  Madison  to  Jefferson.     Letters,  I,  337. 

76.  Sept.     9.  Dayton  to  Gen.  Elias  Dayton.     See  p.  100,  supra. 

77.  Sept.  15.  Dickinson  to  George  Read.     Read's  Read,  p.  456. 

78.  Sept.  17.   ^Faj.  William  Jackson,  secretary  of  the  Convention,  to  Wash- 

ington.    Bancroft,  II,  441. 

79.  Sept.  18.  Blount,  Spaight,  and  Williamson  to  Caswell.     N.  C.  Records, 

XX,  777. 

80.  Sept.  18.  Gilman  to  Jose^jh  Gilmaii.     Arthur   (iilman,  Tlu'   Gihnan 

Family,  p.  109;  G.  Hunt,  Fragments  of  Revolutionary 
History,  p.  156. 

81.  Sept.  18.  Gilman  to  John  Sullivan.     N.  H.  State  Papers,  XXI,  836. 

82.  Sept.  18.  Randolph  to  Beverley  Randolph.     Calendar  of  Virginia  State 

Papers,  IV,  343. 

83.  Sept.  18.  Washington  to  Lafayette.     Sparks,  IX,  265. 

84.  Sept.  20.   Franklin  to  Mrs.  Jane  Mecom.     Writings,  ed.  Bigelow,  IX, 

406. 

85.  Sept.  20.  Madison  to  Edmund  Pendleton.     Lettei-s,  I,  340. 

86.  Sept.  28.  Pierce  to  St.  George  Tucker.     American  Historical  Review, 

III,  313. 

IV.  THE  TEXT  OF  THE    VIRGINIA   PLAN. 

The  Virginia  or  Kaiulolpli  })lan  lor  tlu'  aiiicndment  of  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  pre.s(;nted  to  the  Federal  Conven- 
tion on  May  20,  is  commonly  held  to  be  a  familiar  and  certain 
document.  Yet  there  exist  four  different  texts  of  these  reso- 
lutions, and,  what  is  more  remarkable,  it  can  (in  the  \  lew  of 
the  present  writer)  be  proved  that  no  one  of  the  four  is  the 
exact  text  of  the  orij^inal  series  which  Governor  Kandolph  laid 


104  AMEEIOAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

hoforo  tho  (.'oinoiition  on  May  '2\K  1  TsT.  As  doul)t.s,  to  say  the 
least,  attend  also  the  text  of  the  other  plans  presented,  it  may 
l)e  Avell  before  proeeeding-  to  attempt  a  demonstration  of  this 
thesis  tt)  explain  why  it  is  not  inconceiva])le  that,  important  as 
these  documents  ^vere,  their  exact  text  may  be  uncertain. 

Luther  Martin  in  one  of  the  opening  passages  of  his  Genu- 
ine Tnfoi'mation,  says  of  the  C^onvention:" 

So  extremely  solicitous  were  they  that  their  proceedings  should  not 
transpire,  tliat  the  nu'iiil)ers  were  pr()hil)ited  even  from  taking  copies  of 
resohitions  on  whicli  the  Convention  were  dehl)erating,  or  extracts  of  any 
kind  from  tlie  journals,  without  t'onnally  moving  for  and  obtaining  permis- 
sion hy  a  vote  of  the  Convention  for  that  purpose. 

The  rules  of  the  Convention  now  in  print/'  bear  him  out  so 
far  as  the  journals  are  concerned.  ])ut  not  as  to  resolutions, 
which  like  the  Aarious  "plans,''  were  not  regarded  as  parts  of 
the  journal.  Yet  the  injunction  '"that  nothing  spoken  in  the 
House  ])e  printed,  or  otherwise  published,  or  conmiunicated 
without  leave,''  doubtless  required  secrecy  as  to  the  plans. 
Pierce  says,''  speaking-  apparently  of  the  ^'i^g•inia  plan: 

"A  copy  of  these  propositions  was  given  to  each  memljer  with  an  injunc- 
tion to  keep  everytliing  a  jirofound  secret.  One  morning,  )iy  accident, 
one  of  the  memlx'rs  dropped  his  coi)y  of  tlie  propositions,  which,  being 
luckily  ])icked  up  by  Cxeneral  Miftlin,  was  presented  to  treneral  Washing- 
ton, our  President,  who  put  it  in  his  pocket. 

He  goes  on  to  relate  how  the  General,  the  next  day,  just 
before  adjournment,  forcibl}-  reproved  such  carelessness, 
threw  the  paper  on  the  table — 

and  ([uitted  the  room  with  a  dignity  so  severe  that  every  person  seemed 
alarmed;  for  my  ]iart  I  was  extremely  so,  for  putting  my  hand  in  my 
jHicket  I  missed  my  coi)y  of  the  same  paper;  but  advancing  up  to  the 
tal)le  my  fears  soon  dissipated;  I  found  it  to  l)e  the  liandwriting  of  another 
person. 

In  other  words,  the  copy  which  each  member  had  of  the 
propositions  was,  in  the  ordinary'  case,  a  copy  made  b}" 
his  own  hand.     Thos(>  who  know  how  few  persons  can  eop}^ 

n  Yates,  ed.  1821,  p.  12;  Elliot,  I,  345.  I  quote  Elliot,  unless  the  contrary  is  stated,  from 
that  edition  of  1S3()  and  subsequent  years  which  is  designated  on  its  title-page  as  the  sec- 
ond, but  is  the  third — the  edition  commonly  used.  See  also  what  Martin  says,  ibid.,  358, 
of  the  refusal  of  the  Convention  to  permit  it.s  members  at  the  time  of  the  adjournment  of 
.Tuly26,  "  to  take  correct  copies  of  the  jiropositions  to  whicli  the  Convention  had  then 
agreed." 

''Documentary  History  of  the  Cjonstitution,  I,  .>!. 

•■American  Historical  Keview,  III,  821. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTTON    OF    1787.  105 

anything  accurately  will  see  here  a  natural  source  of  varia- 
tions, even  in  that  more  formal  and  deliberate  age.  More- 
over, there  would  alwavs  be  much  chance  that  a  member, 
following  the  progress  of  debate  and  conclusion  with  his 
paper  ])efore  him.  should  interline  it  with  some  of  the  addi- 
tions or  amendments  which  were  successively  resolved  upon, 
and  that  these  should  creep  undistinguished  into  some  fair 
copy  which  he  might  subsequenth'  make. 

Whatever  be  the  causes,  the  variations  certainly  exist.  Of 
the  Virginia  resolutions  there  are,  as  we  have  said,  four  texts. 
As  the  original  text  in  Randolph's  handwriting,  if  such  there 
were,  is  nowhere  said  now  to  exist,  it  is  natural  to  take  up 
tirst  that  which  Madison  gives."  It  is  printed  in  the  Docu- 
mentary History  of  the  Constitution''  and  in  Hunt's  Writings 
of  James  ]\Iadison.^  Gilpin  printed  it.  witli  a  small  but  im- 
portant variation,  in  The  Madison  Papers,''  and  it  may  also  l)e 
found  ill  the  volume  strangely  called  "  .loiiriiai  |nieaniug 
Debates]  of  the  Federal  Convention,  kejjt  hy  .lames  Madison 
••  *  *•  edited  by  E.  11.  Scott,""'  and  in  the  fifth  volume  of 
Elliot.-^'  This  text,  which  we  may  call  A.  is  sufliciently  de- 
scribed ])V  saying  that  the  ninth  resolution  in  its  scries  l)egiiiS 
with  the  woixls: 

Rexolrcd,  That  a  national  judiciary  1)1-  (.'stal)lislu'(l,  to  consist  <if  unu  or 
more  supreme  tribunals  and  of  inferior  tril)Uiials  to  be  chosen  by  the 
National  Lcjjislature,  to  hol<l  tlicir  olliccs  durinir  .^ood  behavior,  ami  to 
receive,  etc. 

Texts  of  this  type  can  not  in  this  section  exactly  represent 
the  orioinal  resolutions.  This  may  be  seen  by  an  (>xamina- 
tion  of  the  journal  of  the  Connnitteeof  the  Whole  for  June  -f 
and  June  i'>/'  It  there  appears,  l)y  explicit  ([uotation.  that  the 
ninth  resolution  undoublcflly  contained  originally  the  words: 

Rt'.s(jln'<l,  That  a  national  jmliciary  be  established,  tu  be  ai-jiointed  by  the 
National  Legislature,  to  hold  their  oftices  during  good  bi-havior,  and  to 
receive,  etc. 

aThough  the  speech  with  which  Rdinlnipli  accoin.Daiiied  ilie  iiitiofluotion  of  his  reso- 
lutions appears  in  Madison's  notesin  Kamlolpli's  liandwritiiis,  the  textof  the  resolutions 
there  ffivcn  is  in  Madison's  hand.    Hunt,  \Vritinf,'s  of  .lames  Muilison,  III,  21  n. 

bill,  17-20, 

cm,  17-21. 

dU.  731 -7:«. 

("Pp.  Gl-6'1.  iStr.  Hunt  ijivcs  to  Madison's  notes  the  same  iiiM|t|ir"priiilc  and  mislead- 
ing name. 

/  Pp.  ]2H-l:!(J.     There  are  dilTerences  of  imneluation;  l>n(   IIjcn  arc'  hardly  siKUilu  ant 

1/ Documeutary  Histor.v,  I,  21U;  Elliot,  1.  IC.O,  Kd. 


UK)  AMERICAN    IIISTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Of  (he  iiisi>i'ti()ii  of  (lu>  other  word.s  quoted  above  in  this 
clause,  or.  ratlier.  of  tlu'  insertion  of  words  closely  resembling- 
them,  there  is  deUnite  record  in  tiie  form  of  a  vote  of  the 
Committee  of  tiH>  Whole,  flune  4.  "to  add  these  words  to  the 
rirst  clause  of  the  ninth  resolution,  namely:  'To  consist  of 
one  supreme  tribunal,  and  of  one  or  more  inferior  tribunals."'" 
J^lainlv  these  woids  can  not  have  been  in  the  original  plan. 
Furthermore',  on  eJune  12 — 

it  was  iiit)\i(l  and  si'ioikIciI  (<i  alter  tlie  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Ran- 
dolph, so  as  to  read  as  tollows,  namely:  "Tliat  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
suprcnu' lril)unal  shall  lu' to  hear  and  determine  in  the  dernier  resort  all 
l)iracifs,  felonies,  etc."  '' 

In  other  words.  noAV  that  a  provision  for  both  supreme  and 
inferior  tril»unals — a  provision  not  included  in  the  original 
document — had  been  inserted  by  the  committee,  it  seemed 
necessar}-  also  to  modify  the  clause  relating  to  jurisdiction  bj' 
giving  to  the  supreme  tribunal  the  position  of  an  appellate 
court.     Now,  text  A  in  this  clause  gives  the  reading — 

That  tlie  jurisdiction  of  the  inferior  ti'i))unals  shall  be  to  hear  and  de- 
termine in  the  lirst  instance,  and  of  the  supreme  tribunal  to  hear  and 
determine  in  the  dernier  resort,  all  piracies,  etc. 

As  ])efore,  the  proposal  recorded  in  Committee  of  the  Whole 
shows  that  these  words  were  not  in  the  original  resolutions. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  here  one  supreme  court  is  spoken  of, 
whereas  in  the  earlier  clause  the  readintj  of  A  is  "one  or 
more  supreme  tribunals,''  in  itself  an  improbable  reading. 

Probably  Article  9  of  the  Virginia  plan  originally  read: 

Resolved,  That  a  national  judiciary  be  established,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  National  Legislature,  to  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior;  and 
to  receive  punctually,  at  stated  times,  a  fixed  compensation  for  their 
services,  in  which  no  increase  or  diminution  shall  be  made  so  as  to  affect 
the  persons  actually  in  office  at  the  time  of  such  increase  or  diminution; 
tluit  its  jurisdiction  shall  be  to  hear  and  determine  all  piracies  and  felonies 
(in  the  high  seas,  all  t-qitures  from  an  enemy,  and  cases  in  which  foreigners 
or  citizens  of  other  States  applying  to  such  jurisdiction  may  be  interested; 
[perhaps,  alstj,]  or  which  respect  the  collection  of  the  national  revenue, 
impeaclnnent  of  any  national  officers,  and  questions  which  may  involve 
the  national  peace  and  harmony. 


"Documentarj- History,  I,  '210;  Elliot,  I,  KiO,  lt!l,  :iud  Madi.son's  notes  iii  Dofiimontary 
Hi.stor}-,  III,  62. 
SDocvunentary  History,  I,  222. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  107 

The  votes  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole"  do  not  enable 
one  to  be  sure  whether  these  last  lines  were  or  were  not  in 
the  original  draft. 

It  was  intimated  al)ove  that  Gilpin's  text  shows  a  peculiar- 
ity not  found  in  the  books  first  mentioned.  In  view  of  the 
pains  taken  with  the  text  of  the  Documentar}^  History  and 
by  Mr.  Hunt,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  a  phrase  which  is  not 
in  their  versions  has  no  place  in  the  manuscript  which  the}^ 
and  Gilpin  alike  follow.  However,  as  the  insertion  is  one 
which  plays  a  part  in  other  texts  than  A,  it  may  be  as  well  to 
consider  it  at  this  point.  It  occurs  in  the  text  of  the  sixth  of 
the  Virginia  resolutions,  toward  the  end  of  that  article.  This 
concluding  portion,  in  Gilpin,  declares  that  the  National  I^egis- 
lature  ought  to  be  empowered — 

to  negative  all  lawn  passed  by  the  several  States,  contravening  in  the 
opinion  of  the  National  Legislatnre  the  articles  of  Union,  07-  any  treaty  sub- 
sLstiny  under  tlw  anllioritii  of  the  Union;  and  to  call  forth  the  force  of  the 
Union  against  any  member  of  the  Union  tailing  to  fnlfill  its  dnty  nnder  the 
articles  thereof. 

The  words  italicized  above  are  those  not  found  in  the  Docu- 
men':.a'v  Historv  or  in  Hunt's  Writings  of  James  Madison. 
Tliat  they  formed  no  part  of  the  original  document  may  be 
seen  })y  inspecting  the  journal  of  the  Connnittee  of  the  Whole 
for  May  31,  where  we  read:*  "The  following  words  were 
added  to  this  clause  on  motion  of  Mr.  Franklin,  'or  any  treaties 
subsisting  under  the  authority  of  the  Union.'  "  Yet  Kives''  in 
his  summar}^  of  the  plan  adds  the  words  "and  treaties"  at  this 
point,  and  so  does  Madison  himself  in  a  letter  to  ,fohn  'I  yler, 
written  about  1833.'^  It  may  be  added  that  Madison,  in  his 
sununary  of  the  resolutions,  given  in  this  same  letter,  inserts 
the  provision  for  supreme  and  inferior  tribunals,  discussed 
above ;*"  and  so  does  Bancroft,  in  a  summary  which  he  places 
in  quotation  marks.' 

Text  B  of  the  Virginia  phm  is  to  be  found  in  the  (jtlicial 
Journal  of  the  Convention,  published  in  1819  under  theauthor- 


a  Documentary  History,  I,  223;  III,  117. 
''Documentary  History,  I,  203;  Elliot,  I,  IftS. 
"Life  of  .lames  Madison,  II,  314. 

f'McGuire,  Selections  from  the  Correspondence  of  .James  Madison,  \>.  ;H2;  Letters  of 
Madison,  IV,  2«3. 
'-  Il)id.,  310;  ibid.,  282. 
/History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  If,  12. 


108  AMKKK'AN    HISTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

ity  of  the  Secrotjirv  ol"  Stuto; "  in  Yates's  Secret  Proceedings 
anil  Debates,*  and  in  the  second  edition  and  the  third  or  usual 
edition  of  Elliot's  Debates.''  Yates  says:  *'T  have  taken  a 
(•o])v  of  these  resolutions,  which  are  hereinito  aruiexed."  But 
Lansino-.  who  transcrilx'd  Yates's  notes,  says,  in  a  passage  not 
coi)ied  into  Elliot,"'  that  the  se\'eral  papers  referred  to  did  not 
accompany  then),  and  we  are  compelled  to  infer  that  the  single 
source  of  all  these  versions  is  the  Journal  of  181l>.  The  pecul- 
iarities of  this  text  are  the  follownng:  In  the  sixth  resolution  it 
contains  the  words  "  or  an}'  treaty  subsisting  under  the  author- 
ity of  the  Union.'"  Thv  ninth  l)egins  with  the  words  "^<^- 
solrcd^  That  a  national  judiciary  be  established  to 

hold  their  offices  during  good  l)ehavior,  and  to  receive  punctu- 
al!}^," etc.  Yet  though  in  this  first  clause  there  is  no  mention 
of  the  distinction  between  higher  and  lower  Federal  courts, 
the  clause  relating  to  jurisdiction,  in  the  same  resolution,  ])e- 
gins  with  the  words  ''That  the  jurisdiction  of  the  inferior 
tribunals  siiall  be  to  hoar  and  determine  in  the  first  instance, 
and  of  th<>  supreme  tribunal  to  hear  and  determine  in  the 
dernier  ressort,"  etc.  Finally,  there  is,  in  Elliot's  third  edi- 
tion,' an  additional  resolution,  with  the  number  16,  reading: 
"That  the  House  will  to-morrow  resolve  itself  into  a  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whohi  House,  to  consider  of  the  state  of  the  Ameri- 
can Fnion."  It  is  obvious  that  this  last  is  obtained  by  "run- 
ning in"  wMth  the  resolutions  a  portion  of  the  journal  of  the 
Convention's  proceedings  of  May  29./  That  the  pro\ision 
respecting  treaties,  in  Ai-ticle  »!,  has  noplace  in  the  document, 
has  already  been  shown  in  the  case  of  Gilpin.  As  to  Article  9, 
the  journal  of  the  Connnittee  of  the  Whole,  June  5,  when  this 
article  was  receiving  its  lirst  consideration,  reads:  f'  "  It  was  then 
moved  and  seconded  to  strike  out  the  words  '  the  national  leois- 
lature,'  so  as  to  read  '  to  be  appointed  by.'  "  Accordingly  the 
first  clause  of  the  article  nmst  have  originally  contained  the 
words  "to  be  ap])ointed  by  the  national  legislature,"  and  any 
text  which  does  not  contain  them  can  juake  no  claim  to  be  the 
true  original.     To  the  phrases  about  the  jurisdiction  of  su- 


'<  pp.  67-70. 

''Pp.  209-212  ot  the  edition  of  1821;  pp.  22r,-229  of  that  of  1839. 

'•Seconfi  edition,  I,  180-182;  "second"  (third)  edition,  I,  l^-llfi 

''Yates,  ed.  18J1,  p.  207. 

'•  Hnt  not  in  the  first,  nor  in  Yalos,  nor  in  Ihc  .hjurnal  of  Lsiy. 

/  Docnmcntary  History,  I,  .">5. 

(/Ibid.,  I,  211. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  109 

prcnic  unci  inferior  tribunals  the  same  arguments  apply  as 
have  been  adduced  above  in  the  criticism  of  text  A,  ))ut  with 
additional  force  from  the  fact  that  if  the  distinction  had  not 
been  made  in  the  lirst  clause  of  the  article  it  is  unlikely  that 
we  should  tind  it  appearing-  in  the  last. 

Text  C  is  printed  only  in  the  Documentary  History."  Tt  is 
derived  from  a  manuscript  which  came  to  the  Department  of 
State  from  Gen.  Joseph  Bloomtield,  executor  of  David  Brear- 
ley,  member  of  the  Convention  from  New  Jersey.^'  It  can  not 
correctl}^  represent  the  original  for  the  following-  reasons: 
In  Article  4  it  provides  that  the  term  of  the  members  of  the 
first  branch  of  the  national  legislature  shall  l)e  three  vears, . 
yet  the  journal  of  the  Conuuittee  of  the  Whole  for  June  12 
shows  the  conuuittee  on  that  day  for  the  first  time  inserting 
the  words  "three  years"  into  a  ])laidv  previously  existing 
at  this  point.'-  Article  5  provides  that  the  memlxn's  of  the 
second  branch  shall  be  "elected  by  the  individual  legislatures," 
which  was  not  agreed  to  (as  a  substitute  for  election  by  the 
first  branch)  until  June  7.''  Thirdly,  in  Article  (>  the  provi- 
sion respecting  treaties,  already  commented  upon,  is  included. 
Fourthly,  the  beginning  of  Article  7  reads: 

Resolird,  That  a  national  executive  ))e  insstituteil,  to  consist  of  a  single 
I)er.son,  witli  powers  to  carry  into  execution  the  national  laws,  and  to  ap- 
point to  offices  in  cases  not  otherwise  provided  for,  to  heciiosen  l)y  tlie 
national  legislature  for  the  term  of  seven  years,  to  receive  i>unctuaily,  etc. 

But  the  journal  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  June  1,' 
shows  exactly  what  must  have  been  the  reading  of  the  original 
at  this  point,  namely:  ''Jie-s-olved.  That  a  national  executi\(> 
be  instituted,  to  be  chosen  by  the  national  legislature  for  the 

term  of years,  to  receive  [)unctually,"  etc.;  and  it  shows 

the  staoes  bv  which  this  ))ecanie  modified  into  the  form  pi-e- 
sented  by  text  C.  Fifthly,  Article  9  of  the  latter  begins: 
''^ Resolved^  That  a  national  judiciary  be  established,  to  consist 
of  one  supreme  tribimal,  to  hold  their  offices  during,"  etc.; 
yet  recognizes  in  its  clause  respecting  jurisdiction  the  same 
distinction  of  supreme  and  inferior  which  is  made  in  text 
B,  and  in  the  same  words.  Final Iv,  Article  i:^)  declares  that 
the  assent  of  the  national  legislature  "  ought  to  be  re(iuired" 
to  proposed  amendments  to  the  articles  of  union,  whereas  the 

'<Docnm.cnlary  History,  i,  ;«y-332.  (J Ibid.,  I,  202,  215. 

''.(onniiil  (of  1.S19),  pp.  10,  11.  elbid.,  I,  203. 

'■lJocuiiielit;iry  History,  I,  2'JO. 


110  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

((uotutioii  of  this  r(\s()lution  in  the  journal  of  the  Connnittee  of 
tlio  Wliolc  "  supports  the  reading-  "  ought  not  to  be  required," 
which  is  given  in  the  other  texts,  and  nuist  obviously  be 
i-orrect  in  any  ease. 

The  fart  apparently  is  that  text  C  represents  the  original, 
plus  most  of  the  nioditications  made  up  to  about  June  11  or  12. 
Incorrect  as  it  is,  it  may  not  iniprobabh'  be  the  source  from 
which  Secretary  Adams  derived  the  more  correct  text  (B) 
which  he  printed  in  the  official  journal  in  1819;  for,  the  man- 
uscript journal  not  containing  these  resolutions,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  other  text  than  Brearley's  could  have  been  acces- 
sil)le  to  him. 

Text  1)  is  not  in  print,  ))ut  is  found  among  the  manuscripts 
of  William  Paterson.  member  of  the  Convention  from  New 
Jersev.*  In  the  form  in  which  it  now  exists,  it  is  not  a  first 
rough  co])y  on  separate  sheets  (the  form  in  which  we  ma}^ 
assume  that  the  members'  copies  of  the  Virginia  resolutions 
were  first  taken),  but  is  copied  neatl}'  into  a  little  book,  which 
also  contains  Judge  Paterson's  copies  of  several  other  funda- 
mental documents  of  the  Convention,'  This  text  omits  from 
the  fourth  resolution  the  words,  "to  be  incapable  of  reelection 

for  the  space  of after  the  expiration  of  their  term  of 

service;"  but  this  may  be  a  mere  slip,  duo  to  the  verbal  sim- 
ilarity of  this  phrase  to  that  which  in  the  other  texts  precedes 
it.  Like  B  and  C  and  Gilpin's  version  of  A,  it  inserts  in  the 
sixth  resolution  the  provision  respecting  treaties.  It  fills  the 
blank  in  the  number  of  years  of  the  Executive's  term  of  office 
(seventh  resolution)  with  the  w^ord  "  seven."  which  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  did  not  do  till  June  1."'  In  the  ninth 
resolution,  while  the  I'eading  is  otherwise  like  that  of  text  A, 
there  is  a  ])lank  before  the  word  "inferior,''  so  that  the  phrase 

reads:   "Of   one  or  more  supreme  tri])unals,  and  of 

inferioi-  tril)unals."  Although,  for  reasons  alread}-  given, 
these  woi'ds  can  not  be  considered  to  have  been  a  part  of  the 
original  document,  it  may  l)c  that  the  form  in  which  the3^hei-e 
a])pear  r<»presents,  more  correctly  than  that  presented  by  Mad- 
ison, the  intentions  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  June 

"Documentary  Hi.'<tory,  I,  '219. 

''  Lent  to  the  writer  by  the  kindness  of  Miss  Emily  K.  Piiteraon,  of  Perth  Amboy.  There 
is  a  copy  among  the  Bancroft  MSS.  at  the  Lenox  Library. 

'■  The  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  Judge  Paterson's  own  resolves,  and 
Colonel  Hamilton'.v  plan. 

rf  Documentary  History,  I,  205. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONYENTIOlsr    OF    1787,  111 

4  and  fTune  H.  The  committee  then  voted,  lirst,  to  add  the 
words  "to  consist  of  one  supreme  tribunal  and  of  one  or  more 
inferior  tribunals,'-  and  then  to  strike  out  the  words  "  one  or 
more."'^'  It  may  have  been  intended  to  leave  a  blank  in  the 
place  of  the  latter.  However  this  may  be,  arg-uments  alread}^ 
stated  suffice  to  show  that  text  D  has  no  more  claim  than  the 
others  to  represent  the  exact  form  of  the  Virg-inia  resolutions, 
laid  before  the  Convention  on  ]\lay  2i>  l)v  Pklmund  Randolph. 
The  exact  form  of  those  resolutions  can  be  recovered  only  b}' 
inference,  and  in  one  or  two  particidars  remains  uncertain. 

V.  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  PINCKNEY  PLAN. 

On  May  21  •,  inmiediately  after  the  Virginia  resolutions  had 
been  referred  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  "  Mr. 
Charles  Pinckney,  one  of  the  deputies  of  South  Carolina,  laid 
before  the  House  for  their  consideration  the  draft  of  a  Fed- 
eral Government"  which  he  had  prepared,  and  it  also  was 
referred  to  that  committee.  *  There  is  no  evidence  of  any 
debate  upon  it  beyond  the  author's  remark,  that  he  "  con- 
fessed that  it  was  grounded  on  the  same  principle  as  of  the 
above  resolutions,"^  meaning  those  ottered  In'  Governor  Ran- 
dolph. Nor  does  it  appear  to  have  been  separately  considered 
at  any  subsequent  time.  On  July  24  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  was  discharged  from  further  consideration  of  it.  and  it 
was  referred  to  the  Connnittee  of  Detail,  along  with  the  I'cso- 
lutions  reported  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  those 
offered  by  Paterson,  of  New  Jersey.^  No  mention  of  it  in  the 
Convention  by  anyone  but  its  author  seems  to  have  come 
down  to  us.  There  is  something  noteworth}'  in  this  silence. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  the  other  members  thought  their 
youngest  colleague  somewhat  presimiptuous  in  offering  his 
lucubration  at  the  very  outset  and  laving  it  complacently 
alongside  the  mature  conclusions  of  the  gra\-e  and  experienced 
Virginia  Delegates.' 

'iDocnnientary  History,  I,  210.  'ill. 

Mbi<l.,  J,. "■).-). 

<•  Yates,  ed.  1821,  p.  97;  Elliot,  I,  ;«)1;  Dociiiiiciiliiry  History,  III.  11.  'M. 

f^Doenmentary  History,  I,  109;  111,  123,  11:5. 

<■  O'Keall,  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,  II,  140,  tell.s  us  that  I'inckney  always  said  in 
after  life  tliat  lie  had  never  risen  toaddres.^  the  Convention  without  feelings  of  deep  dilTi- 
deneo  and  solemnity;  .so,  also,  "W.S.  E."  in  Dc  Bow's  Review,  XXXIV,  fi4.  But  the  letters 
printed  by  tlie  present  writer  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  IV,  113-129.  reveal  a 
character  marked  by  much  vanity  and  self-assertion.  Sec,  also,  Jefferson's  Writings,  ed 
Ford,  VUl,  289. 


112  AMEKICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Moii'oNcf.  ill  ISIS,  when  the  Secretiirv  of  State,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  was  ])i'eparini>-  the  journal  of  tlie  (convention 
For  publication,  no  copy  of  the  Pinckney  draft  Avas  found 
t'ither  anioni;'  its  oriiiiiiai  ])apers  or  aniono- those  which  had 
l)ecn  added  by  (xeneral  Bloonitield.  In  the  hope  of  repairino- 
the  omission.  xVdams,  after  applying'  in  v:iin  to  Madison,  Avho 
had  no  copy,"  wrote  to  Pinckney,  then  still  Uvinjj;-  in  South 
Carolina,  and  asked  him  for  a  copy  of  his  proposals.''  Pinck- 
ney replied,  in  a  letter  which  has  been  printed,'"  saA'ing  that 
lie  had  amonu-  iiis  j)ai)ers  foui'  or  Ji\e  roug-h  drafts  of  his  plan, 
and  could  not  be  absolutely  sure  which  was  the  one  actually 
presented;  but  that  they  ditt'ered  in  no  essentials,  onl^-  in 
some  words  and  the  arrangement  of  the  articles,  and  that  he 
sent  the  one  which  he  belie\ed  to  be  the  proper  document. 
Adams  printed  the  document  in  the  Journal,"' with  a  footnote 
saying  that  the  paper  had  been  furnished  by  Pinckney. 
From  that  day  (iSlit)  to  this  it  has  figured  in  many  books  as 
the  ■' Pinckney  plan.''  Tt  is  printed,  in  identical  text,  in 
Yates,'  in  Elliot.'  in  (xilpin.-/  in  the  Documentary  History, '' 
and  even  in  Justice  Miller's  Lectures  on  the  Constitution^ 
and  Hunt's  Writings  of  James  Madison.'  The  paper  which 
Pinckney  sent  to  Adams  is  still  in  the  custody  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State.  Mr.  Hunt,  who  gives  a  facsimile  of  a  portion 
of  it  and  of  a  part  of  the  lettei'  in  which  it  was  inclosed, 
declares  that  the  [)lan  is  written  upon  paper  of  the  same  size 
as  the  letter,  and  with  the  same  ink;  that  it  is  undoubtedly 
contem})oraneous  with  the  letter,  and  that  both  are  written 
on  p;ip(>r  bewaring  the  water-mark  of  the  year  lTi>T/' 

That  the  so-called  "Pinckney  plan"  is  not  authentic  has 

"See  his  letter  in  tlic  appendix  to  J.  (".  Iliiniiltdii's  Ifistory  (if  the  Repnblie,  third  edi- 
ticjn,  III,  iii. 

'>See  Memoirs  of  .loliii  Quincy  Adams,  IV,  305. 

'•Letter  of  Deeember  30,  1818,  printed  by  Mr.  Worthinglcn  C.  Ford  in  tlie  Nation  of 
May  23,  1895,  LX,  397,  39S;  and  by  Mr.  Oailhird  Hnnt  in  his  Writings  of  James  Madison, 
III,  22-21.  An  extract  was  ])rinted  in  1870  by  Rives,  in  Iiis  Life  and  Times  of  .Tames 
Madison,  II,  354.  Mr.  Ilnnt  is  in  error  in  saying.  III,  25  n.,  that  the  letter  is  printed  in  the 
Documentary  History. 

''I'p.  71-81. 

'■  Kd.  1.S21,  p]).  212-221.  The  source  is  the  .lournal  iirintc(i  two  years  before;  see  the 
note  to  p.  207. 

/I,  145-149. 

'.I  Pp.  735-746. 

''  I,  309-318. 

'■  Pp.  732  ss. 

J  III,  23-36. 

'■  Writings  of  .lames  Madison,  III,  .wii  and  247 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF   1181.  113 

been  ,so  publicl}'  and  so  successful Ij^  demonstrated  that  a  writer 
who  does  not  like  to  spend  his  time  in  slaying-  the  slain  might 
be  excused  if  he  took  this  for  granted  and  passed  on  to  cast 
what  new  light  he  could  upon  the  problem  of  the  real  Pinck- 
ney  plan.  But  in  reality  the  two  inquiries  are  closely  con- 
nected; and,  moreov^er,  the  legendary  version  has  such  vitality 
that  it'is  no  harm  to  cast  one  more  stone  upon  its  funeral  cairn 
as  one  passes  by.  In  1859  a  South  Carolina  writer  assures  us 
that,  in  view  of  the  remarkably  close  ag-reement  between 
Pinckney's  proposals  and  the  rinished  Constitution,  "  he  has 
alwavs  been  considered  as  entitled  to  the  high  and  honorable 
designation  of  the  Father  of  the  Constitution.""  This  was 
Ijefore  much  of  the  pertinent  evidence  to  the  contrary-  had 
been  made  public.  But  such  was  not  the  case  when,  in  1894, 
in  the  income-tax  decision,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  quoted  the  "Pinckney  plan"  as  if 
it  had  authority/'     It  may  be  that — 

"Error,  wounded,  writhew  in  pain, 
And  dies  among  his  worshippers;" 

but,  if  we  are  speaking  of  historical  error,  he  manifestly 
takes  his  time  about  it. 

The  supposed  plan  might  instantly  be  put  out  of  court  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  ''  too  good  to  be  true."  A  novice  in  his- 
torical criticism,  provided  he  had  read  the  stor^'  of  the  long 
and  shifting  and  sometimes  bitter  disput(^s  by  which  the  Con- 
vention had  hammered  into  shape  a  Constitution  for  the  United 
States,  would  say  at  once  that  it  was  glaringly  lm[)ro])able— 
in  fact,  impossible — that  as  the  result  of  this  process  they 
should  come  around  to  the  acceptance,  to  tlie  extent  of  five- 
sixths,  of  a  document  offered  to  them  at  the  outset  in  full 
detail;  or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  that  their  youngest  mem- 
ber should  succeed  ])eforehand  in  framing  a  constitution  so 
good  that  they  could  hardly  improve  it,  yet  that  "the  wisest 
council  in  tiie  world"  should  not  be  able  to  perceive  this  fact 
till  they  had  wrangled  over  the  document  (without  expressly 
mentioning  it)  for  more  than  three  months. 

a  J.  B.  O'NeaU,  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,  II,  139.  So,  also,  '■  W.  S.  E.  of  S.  C," 
in  his  sketch  of  Pinckney  in  De  Bow's  Review,  XXXIV,  63.  "W.S.  K."  was  William 
Sinker  Klliott,  grandson  of  Pinckney. 

l>  Pollock  V.  Farmers'  Loan  and  Trust  Co.,  1-57  U.  S.  Reports,  .'XJ'J. 

H.  Doc.  401,  pt  1 8 


114  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

It  now  appoars  that  the  document  had  not  been  lono-  pub- 
lished l)(>t'()re  its  autlienticity  was  private!}'  disputed.  John 
Taylor,  of  Caroline,  to  l)e  sure,  who  in  his  New  Views  of  the 
Constitution  (I.S23)  uiio-ht  be  supposed  to  hnve  exhausted  sus- 
picion concerning-  the  integrity  of  the  Journal,  seems  to  accept 
the  "Pinckney  phin  "  without  a  nuirnmr."  But  Rufus  King, 
who  ditMl  in  1  Si' 7.  told  Jolui  Quincy  Adams  that  it  was  not 
g-enuine,  and  Madison  said  the  same  to  Jared  Sparks  when 
Sparks  visited  him  at  Montpelier  in  April,  1830.  As  the  pas- 
sage of  Adams's  diary  in  which  these  (piestionings  are  brought 
out  has  apparently  not  before  been  used  in  this  connection, 
and  as  the}'  seem  to  be  the  earliest  recorded,  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  quote  at  length  from  that  "copious  storehouse  of 
damnations."'' 

Sparks  said  he  hail  been  spending  a  week  at  Mr.  Madison's,  who 
spoke  to  liiin  imu-li  of  the  proceedings  and  ii^blished  Journal  of  the 
Convention  of  17S7.  lie  said  he  knew  not  what  to  make  of  the  plan  of 
Constitution  in  tliat  volume  purporting  to  have  been  jjresented  by  Charles 
Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina.  He  said  there  was  a  paper  presented  by 
that  person  to  the  Convention,  but  it  was  nothing  like  the  paper  now  in 
the  book.  It  was  referred  to  the  committee  who  drafted  tlie  plan  of  the 
Constitution,  and  was  never  afterwards  in  any  manner  referred  to  or 
noticed.  In  tlie  l)ook  it  lias  the  appearance  as  if  it  was  the  original  draft 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  and  as  if  that  which  was  finally  adopted  was 
Pinckney's  plan,  with  a  very  few  slight  alterations.  I  told  Mr.  Sparks  tliat 
Kufus  King  had  spoken  to  me  of  C.  Pinckney's  paper  precisely  in  the  ^ame 
manner  as  he  says  Mr.  ^ladison  iiow  does;  that  it  was  a  paper  to  which 
no  sort  of  attention  was  jjaid  by  the  Convention,  except  that  of  referring 
it  to  the  committee,  but  when  I  compiled  the  Journal  of  the  Convention, 
Charles  Pinckney  himself  sent  me  the  plan  now  in  the  book  as  the  paper 
Avhich  he  had  presented  to  the  Convention,  and  witli  it  he  wrote  me  a 
letter  whicli  o1)viously  held  tlie  ])retension  that  the  whole  plan  of  Consti- 
tution was  his  and  that  the  Convention  had  done  nothing  more  than  to 
deteriorate  his  work  by  altering  some  of  his  favorite  provisions.  Sparks 
said  Mr.  Madison  added  that  this  plan  now  in  the  book  contained  several 
tilings  which  could  not  possibly  have  })een  in  Pinckney's  paper,  but  which 
rose  out  of  the  debates  upon  the  plan  of  Constitution  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee. He  conjectured  that  ]Mr.  Pinckney's  memory  luad  failed  him,  and 
that,  instead  of  a  co])y  of  the  paper  M'hich  he  did  present,  he  had  found  a 
copy  of  the  plan  reported  by  the  committeo  with  interlined  amendments, 
perhaps  proposed  l)y  him,  and,  at  a  distance  of  more  than  thirty  years, 
iiad  imagined  it  was  his  own  ])laii. 


'•  P.  19. 

''  May  1, 1JS;!0.  Mi'moirs,  VI 1 1,  -JJI,  225.  See  also  Sparks's  roconl  of  liis  oonvpvsatii  m  with 
Madison  in  H.  B.  Adams's  Jared  Sjiarks.  I,  'UV.i.  and  liis  corruspondencf  with  Madison. 
ibid.,  11,225-231. 


THE    FEDEKAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  115 

In  several  letters  written  during  the  next  few  years,  but  not 
published  till  1867,  Madison  went  into  the  question  more 
explicitly.  Writing  to  Sparks  in  1831,  he  declared  the  evi- 
dence against  the  draft  irresistible."  For  instance,  ho  pointed 
out  that,  whereas  in  that  document  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives is  made  the  choice  of  the  people,  it  was  the  known 
opinion  of  Pinckney,  who  lodged  in  the  same  house  with  him 
at  Philadelphia,  that  they  should  be  chosen  liy  the  State  legis- 
latures; that  on  June  6  Pinckney,  agreeably  to  previous  notice, 
moved  an  amendment  in  that  sense;  and  that  in  a  letter  to  liim. 
dated  March  28, 1789,  Pinckney  had  asked  him  if  he  was  not 
•"abundantly  convinced  that  the  theoretic  nonsense  of  an 
election  of  the  members  of  Congress  by  the  people,  in  the 
hrst  instance,  is  clearh'  and  practically  wrong."'''  In  two 
sul)sequent  letters — one  written  in  1831  to  T.  S.  Grimke,  the 
other  in  1835  to  AV.  A.  Duer — he  d^velt  upon  the  same  dis- 
crepancies, using  the  Journal  rather  than  his  own  notes  as  the 
touchstone,  and  requesting  the  letters  to  be  regarded  as  con- 
fidential.^ It  is  not  necessary  to  detail  all  the  comparisons 
made.  Substantially  the  same  were  published  in  181(i  in  an 
appendix  to  Madison's  notes  of  the  debates,  edited  by  Gilpin. ' 

In  this  memorandum,  moreover,  and  in  two  of  the  letters 
mentioned  above,  Madison  adduces  evidence  from  another 
quarter  in  support  of  his  contention  that  the  draft  could  not 
be  what  it  purported  to  be.  This  is  from  a  pami)hlet  entitled 
•■Observations  on  the  Plan  of  Government,  submitted  to  the 
Federal  Convention  in  Philadelphia  on  the  28th  [.y/rj  of  May, 
1787,  by  the  Hon.  Charles  Pinckney,  esq.,  LL.  0.,  Delegate 
from  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  delivered  at  difiiM-ent  times  in 
the  course  of  their  discussions."''  It  Avas  "privately  printed" 
in  New  York  within  a  month  of  the  rising  of  the  Convention. 
Madison,  on  October  11,  sends  a  copy  of  it  to  Washington./ 

«  Letters  of  Madison,  IV,  201-203;  Adams's  Sparks,  11,  227. 

6  In  January  of  the  same  year  Pinckney  had  written  to  tlie  same  effect  to  Rufus  King: 
"Yon  know  I  always  preferred  the  election  of  representatives  hy  the  Icffislature  to  that 
of  the  people,  and  I  will  now  venture  to  pronounce  that  the  mode  which  you  and  Madi- 
son and  some  others  so  thoroughly  contended  for  and  ultimately  carried  is  the  greatest 
blot  in  the  Constitution."     (Life  and  Correspondence  of  Rufus  King,  I,  3n9.) 

c  Letters  of  Madison,  IV,  337,  378.    See  also  pp.  172, 181, 183 

rfGilpin,  III,  app.  v-vii;  Klliot,  V,  .578,  .579. 

"•No.  143  in  Ford's  Biljliography  of  the  Constitution. 

/Letters  of  Madison,  I.  312;  Sparks,  Letters  to  Washington.  IV,  182.  Washington's  copy 
of  the  pamphlet  is  still  in  existence.  Catalogue  of  the  Washington  Collection  in  the 
Boston  Athenajum,  p.  -535. 


11(>  AMEKICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Tlu^v  oxchiingc  sentiinonts  upon  it.  in  their  grave  manner. 
Washitioton  wvitos:  ''Mr.  C.  Pinckney  iw  innvillino-.  1  por- 
opivo  l)v  tho  inolcsures  contained  in  your  favor  of  tlic  iotli 
[UthJ,  to  U)80  any  fame  that  ean  be  acciuired  })y  the  pul)lica- 
tion  of  his  sentiments.'""  To  which  Madison  replies:  "'Mr. 
Charles  Pinckney's  character  is.  as  you  observe,  well  marked 
by  the  publications  which  I  inclosed.''*  It  is  not  o-enerally 
known  that  Pinckne}^  immediately  reprinted  his  "Observa- 
tions" ill  a  South  Cai'olina  newspaper.''  In  1S5T  they  were 
reprinted  by  Frank  Moore  in  Volume  I  of  his  American 
EUxiuence.''  The  ori^'inal  is  xcvy  rare.'  Madison,  in  1831, 
having  l)ut  a  nuitilated  copy,  took  pains  to  borrow  one  from 
New  Yoi-k,  and  by  its  means  had  no  difficulty  in  casting  still 
further  discredit  on  the  draft  contributed  by  Pinckney  to  the 
Journal.'  The  pamphlet  did  not,  indeed,  give  the  text  of  the 
project  to  which  its  title  referred.  But  man}^  references  were 
made  to  it  in  the  course  of  the  "Observations,"  which,  in  fact, 
had  the  form  of  a  series  of  arguments  based  on  its  provisions, 
which  were  taken  up  in  order,  and  in  some  cases  cited  by 
number.  It  was  ])lain  that  they  ditiered  widely  from  those 
of  the  printed  draft. 

In  1810  and  in  1859  John  C.  Hamilton  exposed  fully  the 
untrustworthy  character  of  the  latter. f'  In  1870  Rives  did 
the  same.''  When  Bancroft  in  1882  published  his  Formation 
of  the  Constitution  he  contented  himself  with  saj-ing  only  of 
the  draft  submitted  to  the  Convention  by  Pinckney  that  "no 
part  of  it  was  used  and  no  copy  of  it  has  been  preserved."* 
In  1894,  in  a  review  article  in  the  Nation,  the  WvOrthlessness 
of  the  accepted  text  was  again  insisted  on.  This  led  to  the 
publication  of  Pinckne} 's  original  letter  b}^  Mr.  AVorthington 

n October  22,  1787.  Ford,  XI,  175;  Sparks,  IX,  274.  Sparks  charat'teristically  has  "Mr. 
C.  P ." 

h  Oftober  28.     Gilpin,  11,6.33;  Elliot,  V,  .'SeS;  Sparks,  Letters  to  Washington,  IV,  186. 

'•A  copy  of  the  State  Gazette  of  South  (Carolina  for  November  1,  1787,  in  the  library  of 
the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  contains  an  installment  (evidentlythe  second)  of  the 
pamphlet,  and  others  follow  in  the  two  succeedins  numbers  (Novembers,  8),  which  are 
all  the  society  possesses  for  that  month.  No  doubt  the  print  began  October  29  and  ran 
till  November  29. 

'I  Pp.  362-370. 

e  Mr.  Ford  notes  copies  at  the  Astor  Library  and  in  the  libraries  of  the  Boston  Athe- 
naeum and  the  Mas.sachusetts  and  New  York  Historical  Societies. 

/Letters, IV,  182.    See  his  comparisons  which  accompany  the  letter  l<i  Ducr,  id.,  IV, 379. 

(/Life  of  Hamilton,  II,  409;  History  of  the  Republic,  III,  258-260. 

''  Life  and  Times  of  Madison,  II,  353-357. 

'■  II,  14. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTIO^ST    OF    1787.  117 

Ford,  as  alreath^  meutionod,"  and  to  an  article  by  Mr.  Paul  L. 
Ford,  in  which  he  used  the  pamphlet  ''Observations"  as  the 
basis  for  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  actual  Pinckney  plan.'' 
Just  how  far  this  method  is  valid  will  be  considered  later. 
For  the  present  it  is  sufficient  to  have  narrated  how,  by  a 
series^  of  criticisms  extending  from  Rufus  King's  time  to 
ours,  the  so-called  draft  has  been  so  utterly  discredited  that 
no  instructed  person  will  use  it  as  it  stands  as  a  basis  for  con- 
stitutional or  historical  reasoning.  What  relation  it  bears  to 
the  actual  plan  is  a  matter  for  separate  investigation.  We 
have  seen  what  Madison's  kindly  exi)lanation  was,  as  given  in 
conversation  with  Sparks.  In  another  form,  with  a  difference 
to  which  we  shall  advert  later,  he  also  gives  his  view  of  the 
matter  in  a  note  printed  l)y  Gilpin,  namely,  that  at  some  time, 
having  lost  the  original,  Pinckney  had  resorted  for  a  copy — 

to  the  rough  draught,  in  which  erasures  and  interlineations,  following 
what  passed  in  the  Convention,  might  be  confounded,  in  part  at  least, 
with  the  original  text,  and  after  a  lapse  of  more  than  thirty  years  con- 
founded also  in  the  memory  of  the  author. '' 

But  is  it  possible  to  recover  the  provisions  of  the  actual 
Pinckney  plan?  There  is  one,  and  so  far  as  now  appears 
only  one,  secure  method  of  recovering  a  part  of  them.''  We 
njav  be  fairly  certain  that  an}'  provisions  which  Pinckney  is 
found  advocating,  against  the  general  opinion  or  against  the 
clauses  of  the  plan  which  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  had 
adopted  as  the  main  l)asis  of  its  discussions,  are  portions  of 
his  own  plan,  provided  we  find  him  advocating  them  during 
the  next  two  weeks  after  its  presentation.  At  later  stages 
his  moving  an  amendment  or  speaking  in  its  favor  is  no  clear 
evidence  of  this,  for  it  is  then  ])Ossible  that  the  process  of 
del)ate  may  have  suggested  to  his  mind  a  new  device  or  con- 
vinced him  of  the  merit  of  one  suggested  bv  another.  Now 
it  so  happims  that  in  his  suggesting  of  provisions,  as  revealed 
by  the  recorded  debates,  there  are  two  well-deiined  periods. 

a  Nation,  LX,  398,  May  23,  1895. 

Mbid.,  LX,  458,  June  13.  1895. 

cGilpin,  III,  app.  vi. 

rfA  footnote  in  Hunt'.s  Madison,  III,  25,  suy.s  that  "correspondence  with  I'inckney's 
descendiints  reveals  the  fact  that  some;  of  the  notes  to  which  he  alludes  in  his  letters  are 
extant;"  but  Mr.  Hunt  tells  me  that  this  is  a  misprint— "some"  for  "none."  See  his 
I)reface,  p.  xiv.  See  also  note  "  on  p.  131.  The  statement  in  the  text  now  recjuires  modi- 
(ication,  in  view  of  my  discovery  of  large  parts  of  I'iuckney  s  original  text.  See  p.  I'-'s, 
infra. 


lis  AMERICAN    HISTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Tlic  one  extends  to  Juno  I."!,  (lie  niain  period  of  consideration 
in  (Committee  of  the  Whole.  'Hien  comes,  save  for  one  occa- 
sion, a  loiio-  hiatus,  extending  to  July  5.  during  which  he 
shows  no  advocacy  of  definite  provisions.  On  Juno  25,  to  be 
sure,  he  makes  along-  and  elaborate  speech,  a  ''great  effort," 
of  which  he  Avas  evidently  proud,  for  he  gave  Madison  a  copy 
of  it,"  and  used  it  later  in  the  South  Carolina  convention;'' 
but  it  is  not  a  thing  from  which  definite  details  of  his  prefer- 
ences can  be  derived.  These  emerge  again  after  July  5,  and 
from  time  to  time  till  the  end  of  the  Convention;  but  now  the 
discussions  stood  on  an  altered  basis  in  so  many  respects  that, 
as  intimated  a])ove,  we  can  not  relate  his  remarks  to  his  plan 
with  the  same  sense  of  security. 

Throughout  the  first  of  these  two  periods,  the  fortnight  im- 
mediately following  the  announcement  of  his  plan,  all  Pinck- 
nej^'s  motions  and  remarks  go  to  show  that  it,  "grounded,"  as 
he  himself  declared,  "on  the  same  principle  as"  the  Virginia 
plan,'"  provided  for  a  national  government  with  a  bicameral 
legislature,  an  executive,  and  a  judiciary.  He  planned  for  a 
single  executive''  to  be  elected  I)}"  the  national  legislature*  for 
the  term  of  seven  years,-'  and  for  a  judiciary  to  be  elected  b}^ 
the  same  body.^'  His  national  legislature  was  to  have  a  gen- 
eral power  to  negative  State  laws.''  The  members  of  its  first 
or  more  numerous  branch  were  to  be  elected  bj^  the  legisla- 
tures of  the  States.'  In  this  l)ranch  each  State  was  to  be 
represented  by  a  number  of  members  proportioned  to  the 

nDocumentary  History,  III,  199-207;  Gilpin,  II,  945-954:  Elliot,  V,  233-238;  Hunt,  III, 
267-277.  Another  version,  containing-  the  same  matter  differently  arranged,  is  in  Docu- 
mentary History,  III,  789-795.    Yates,  pp.  161-163;  Elliot,  i,  443-144. 

l>  It  is  printed  in  the  State  Gazette,  of  South  Carolina,  for  May,  1788.  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley, 
of  Charleston,  and  Miss  Mary  Robinson,  of  Worcester,  have  kindly  searched  th.ii  paper 
for  me.  It  is  also  printed  in  Carey's  American  Museum,  IV,  256-263,  and  in  Ellii)t.  IV. 
318-3-23. 

cYates,  p.  97;  not  "principles,"  as  in  Elliot,  1,  3'.il.  Tlie  C(nitext  .shows  that  Yates 
meant  the  principle  of  consolidation. 

(Uiinel,  2.  Documentary  History,  III,  35,  51;  Hunt.  Ill,  .57,  77;  Yates,  p.  101:  Klliot. 
I,  394. 

e Pierce,  in  American  Historical  Keview,  III,  ;!21.  See  also  Dociuncntarv  History,  III, 
:j.55;  Hunt,  III,  4.51,  4.52  (July  17). 

/.June  1.    Documentary  History,  MI,  ;59;  Hunt,  III,  63. 

!/.nine.5,  Vi.  Documentary  History,  III,  64,  117;  Hunt,  III,  92,  157;  Yates,  ji.  120;  Elliot, 
I,  409. 

/'.June  s.  Documentary  Hi.story,  III,  .88;  Hunt,  III.  121:  Yates,  p.  los;  Elliot,  I.  400; 
King,  I,  597,  59S. 

'June  6,  7.  Documentary  History,  III,  69;  Hunt,  III,  99;  Yates,  p.  105;  Elliot,  I,  397: 
King,  I,  .593.  See  also  the  letters  of  January  .-ind  March,  1789,  to  King  and  Madison, 
already  mentioned. 


THE    FEDERAL    COISr^'ENTION    OF    1787.  IIV) 

number  of  its  free  inhiil)itunt.s  plus  three-lifths  of  the  slaves." 
Its  members  were  to  be  reeligible,  and  not  subject  to  recall 
by  the  legislatures  of  their  States.'^  The  members  of  the  sec- 
ond branch  were  to  be  elected  either  bv  the  State  leo-islatures 
or  b}'  the  tirst  branch,  it  is  not  certain  which.''  Each  State 
was  to  have  from  one  to  three  members  in  this  branch,  accord- 
ing- to  its  population.''  The  States  were  also  to  be  grouped 
into  four  great  geographical  districts  for  senatorial  elections, 
seemingly  with  the  object  of  securing  a  four-years'  rotation.^ 
Apparently  Pinckney  had  provided  for  a  council  of  revision, 
consisting  of  the  executive  magistrate  and  the  heads  of  the 
principal  departments;-^"  and  apparently  he  had  arranged  that 
if  unanimity  could  not  be  secured  nine  States  should  be  au- 
thorized to  unite  under  the  new  form  of  government.  ■' 

Here  was  a  very  respectable  scheme,  which  might  well  have 
received  much  attention  if  the  Virginia  plan,  which  in  general 
it  so  much  resembled,  had  not  had  the  right  of  way.  It  seems 
to  have  escaped  notice  that  this  true  plan  of  Pinckney's  is  par- 
tiall}^  described,  though  without  mention  of  his  name,  in  a 
contemporary  letter  long  in  print.''  Writing  to  Dickinson  and 
urging  his  attendance,  George  liead,  of  Delaware,  under  date 
of  May  21,  says: 

I  am  in  possession  of  a  copied  draft  of  a  federal  system  intended  to  be 
proposed,  if  something  nearly  similar  shall  not  precede  it.  Some  of  its 
principal  features  are  taken  from  the  New  York  system  of  government. 

aJune  11.  Documentary  History,  III,  106,  107;  Hunt,  III,  143.  According  to  Pierce 
ubi  sup.,  :?24,  lie  had  on  June  G  declared  for  a  representation  ])roportioned  to  pecuniary 
contributions.  Later,  July  (j,  12  (Doc.  Hist.,  Ill,  283,  324;  Hunt,  HI,  308,  415),  he  declared 
hi.s  personal  preference  for  counting  the  whole  population,  free  and  slave. 

&  June  12.    Documentary  History,  III,  114;  Hunt,  III,  152. 

cMay  31,  June  7,  8.  Documentary  History,  III,  31,  86,  94;  I,  210;  Huiil,  III,  52,  119;  cf. 
Read's  letter,  described  infra. 

'(June  7,  H.  Documentary  History,  III,  69, 84;  Hunt,  III,  119,  127.  To  the  same  eflEect  in 
Documentary  History,  III,  203,  204;  Hunt,  III,  343,  344;  Yates,  p.  201;  Elliot,  I,  474.  This  is 
later,  July  2,  but  IMuckney  is  expressly  referring  to  his  own  plan,  as  he  did  also  on  June 
2.5,  reading  from  it  at  the  end  of  his  long  speech,  as  appears  from  the  conclusion,  .sum- 
marized by  Yates,  p.  163  (Elliot,  I,  414),  but  not  given  by  Madison. 

'May  31.  Pierce,  in  American  Historical  Review,  III,  319.  In  later  remarks,  July  14, 
1 'i lie kney  suggests  for  each  SUite  its  number  of  senators,  varying  from  1  to  4;  probably 
his  four  districts,  the  senators  from  one  of  which  would  have  retired  each  year,  would 
have  been  (1)  New  England,  (2)  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  (3)  Delaware, 
Maryland,  and  Virginia,  (4)  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia.  Documentary  History,  III,  335; 
Hunt,  III,  42M. 

/June  6.    Documentary  History,  III,  7.s:  Hunt,  HI,  110. 

f/Jimeo.     Documentary  History,  111,  07;  Hunt,  III,  96. 

'i  W.  T.  Read's  Life  and  (Jorrcspondcnce  of  George  Read,  p.  443.  I  am  informed  by  Mr. 
John  W.  Jordan,  .secretary  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  that  while  the  let- 
ter is  among  the  George  Read  papers  possessed  by  the  society,  the  copied  draft  is  not. 


PJO  AMKKICAN    IIISTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

A  house  of  delegates  and  senate  lor  a  general  legislature,  as  to  the  great 
liusiness  of  the  Union.  The  first  of  them  to  he  cliosen  by  the  legislature 
of  each  State,  in  proportion  to  its  numher  of  wliite  inhabitants,  and  three- 
fifths  of  all  others,  fixing  a  number  for  sending  each  representative.  The 
second,  to  wit,  the  senate,  to  be  elected  by  tlie  delegates  so  returned, 
either  from  themselves  or  the  people  at  large,  in  four  great  districts,  into 
which  the  United  States  are  to  be  divided  for  the  purpose  of  forming  this 
senate  from,«  which,  when  so  formed,  is  to  be  divided  into  four  classes 
for  the  purjiose  of  an  animal  rotation  of  a  fourth  of  the  members.  A  presi- 
dent having  only  executive  powers  for  seven  years. 

The  resemblance  })et\veen  thesQ  details  and  those  which  we 
have  discovered  admits  of  but  one  explanation.  Plainly  this 
is  the  Pinckney  plan,  completed  before  May  21,  while  the 
delegates  were  still  assembling;*  and  the  description  adds 
some  useful  items  to  our  search. 

Perhaps  others  can  be  gleaned  from  some  motions  made  by 
Pinckney  late  in  July,  from  his  opposition  to  impeachment 
of  the  President  and  his  desire  for  property  qualilications  for 
Federal  officials ;''  but  here  we  are  treading  on  less  secure 
ground,  and  certainly  some  of  his  motions  of  this  period  are 
contrary  to  his  proposals  of  the  lirst  weeks. '^  Least  of  all  can 
such  a  course  of  inference  be  pursued  with  regard  to  the 
numerous  proposals  which  Pincknev  made  in  the  last  month 
of  the  Convention.^ 

But  what  of  the  pamphlet  "Observations?"  It  has  been 
effectively  used  as  a  means  of  reconsti'ucting  Pinckney's 
original  draft,-^and  probal)ly  most  of  the  results  thus  obtained 
are  substantial.  Yet  considerable  skepticism  is  justified.  In 
che  first  place,  if  one  asks  what  evidence  there  is  that  the 

a  This  device  would  have  .seemed  much  like  that  which  then  prevailed  in  the  election 
of  senators  for  the  New  York  legisluturc. 

')  "  W.  S.  E.  of  S.  C,"  in  De  How,  XXXI V,  03,  says:  "This  draft  was  made  in  Charleston 
before  the  writer  thereof  had  any  opiwrtuiiity  of  conference  witli  Ins  co-workers,  and 
carried  with  him  to  the  Convention." 

cjuly  20,  2G.    Documentary  History,  III,  383,  380,  435,  437, 

dViz.,  the  proposal  of  July  21,  that  the  judges  should  be  chosen  l)y  the  second  branch, 
and  that  of  ,Iuly  2.5,  that  the  executive  should  lie  reeligiblc  only  si.x  years  in  every 
twelve.    Documentary  History,  III,  400,  427. 

<;  August  18,  20,  September  14,  15.    Id.,  bho,  5.50,  505,  .507,  745,  747,  755. 

/By  Mr.  Paul  Ford,  Nation,  LX,  458.  But  not  always  correctly.  He  gives  the  House 
of  Delegates,  instead  of  the  Senate,  a  four  years'  term.  He  places  the  head  of  the  home 
department  among  the  President's  Cabinet  officers,  though  the  speech  gives  the  Presi- 
dent himself  the  special  care  of  that  dej)artmcnt.  lie  .says  that  the  President  is  given 
no  ai»pointing  power,  whereas  he  is  given  power  to  appoint  all  officers  but  the  judges 
and  the  foreign  ministers.  He  mistakenly  derives  a  fugitive-slave  provision  from  that 
concerning  fugitives  from  justice.  He  says  that  the  power  to  levy  imposts  is  subject  to  a 
limitation  on  the  percentage,  whereas  Pinckney  .says:  "  I  thought  it  improper  to  fi.K  the 
percentage  of  the  imposts,  because,"  etc.    Moore,  I,  367. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION   OF    1787.  121 

speech  was  ever  delivered  in  the  Convention,  oven  in  portions 
"at  different  times  in  the  course  of  their  discussions"  (as  the 
title  has  it),  we  are  obliged  to  confess  that  there  is  none. 
The  present  writer  does  not  believe  that  any  portion  of  this 
long  oration,  save  one  paragraph,''  was  ever  heard  in  Inde- 
pendence Hall.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  it  should  have 
been  delivered,  even  in  small  portions  administered  from  day 
to  day,  yet  have  escaped  absolutelv  all  notice  from  either 
Madison,  Yates,  Pierce,  or  King.  Moreover,  in  spite  of  the 
title-page,  it  can  not  have  been  administered  in  small  portions, 
but  if  given  at  all  must  have  been  g'iven  at  once,  and  on  May 
29,  the  very  day  on  which  the  plan  was  first  i-ead.  For  in 
the  very  closing  paragraphs  we  find  such  language  as  this: 

In  opening  the  subject,  the  hmits  of  my  present  ol)servatioiu«  would  only 
permit  me  to  touch  the  outlines  [of  my  plan].  *  *  *  The  first  o))ject 
with  the  Convention  must  be  to  determine  on  principles.  Tlie  most  lead- 
ing of  these  are  *  *  *  In  order  to  bring  a  system  founded  on  these 
principles  to  the  view  of  the  Convention,  I  have  sketched  the  one  whicli 
has  just  been  read.  I  now  submit  it  with  deference  to  theirconsideration, 
and  wish,  if  it  does  not  appear  altogether  objectionable,  that  it  may  be 
referred  to  the  examination  of  a  committee.  *  *  *  j  am  doubtful 
whether  the  Convention  will,  at  first,  l)e  inclined  to  i)roceed  as  far  as  I  have 
intended;  but,  etc. 

In  other  words,  this  purports  to  be  a  speech  delivered  after 
the  plan  had  been  read  and  before  it  had  been  referred;  that  is 
to  say,  delivered  on  May  29.  No  one  can  l)elieve  that  a  speech 
of  such  length  and  interest  was  made  on  that  day  yet  escaped 
the  notice  of  Madison  and  Yates.^  Madison's  words  are  \V(>11 
knoAvn:  "I  was  not  absent  a  single  day,  nor  more  than  a  cas- 
ual fraction  of  an  hour  in  an}^  day,  so  that  I  could  not  have 
lost  a  single  speech  unless  a  verj^  short  one."'' 

But  though  the  speech  may  be  as  imaginary  as  those  of 
Herodotus  or  Thucydides,  its  statements  as  to  the  plan  are 
probably  entitled  to  some  credit,  especially- as  we  find  them 
agreeing  with  a  number  of  the  results  which  we  have  deri\ cd 
from  the  d(^])ates  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  from 
Read's  letter.  Not  many  structural  details  arc  added  to 
those.  The  term  of  the  Senate  is  to  be  four  years;  ))ut  that 
was  implied  in  the  plans  for  rotation.     Tlio  Kxocutive  is  to  bo 

"The  next  to  the  last,  which  appears  in  another  context,  in  the  delialc  of  .Inly  J. 
Doenmentary  History,  III,  2(13;  Hunt,  HI,  :513,  344. 
''  Pierce  hail  not  yet  taken  his  .seat,  un<l  King's  notes  ilo  nut  cover  lliis  iliiy. 
c Hunt,  II,  110, -in. 


122  AMKRICAN    mSTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

riM>lii:il)l('.  He  is  provided  witii  a  Cabinet.  He  is  to  be  com- 
iimiuler-in-ehief,  and  to  appoint  all  officers  except  the  judges 
and  tin'  ministers  to  foreio'n  countri(^s.  "  llo  is  also  stated  to 
l)e  removable  by  impeachment,  thouo'h  IMnckney  strongly 
oppostnl  this  in  the  Convention.  ''  On  the  other  hand,  man}^ 
new  details,  of  considerable  interest  if  we  can  trust  them,  are 
given  concerning  the  powers  to  be  intrusted  to  Congress. 
Some  of  them  merely  repeat  the  provisions  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation.  Of  the  rest,  the  most  important  are:  an 
unqualified  right  to  raise  troops;  the  right  to  levy  taxes  upon 
the  States  in  proportion  to  the  white  population  plus  three- 
fifths  of  the  slaves,  to  regulate  trade,  to  levy  imposts,  to  insti 
tute  all  necessary  offices,  to  erect  a  Federal  court  with  juris- 
diction over  Federal  and  international  cases,  and  to  appoint 
courts  of  admiralty  in  the  States;  an  exclusive  right  to  coin 
money  and  to  determine  in  what  species  of  mone}^  the  common 
treasury  should  be  supplied;  an  exclusive  right  to  regulate  the 
militia  and  order  its  movements;  the  right  to  coerce  States 
into  furnishing  their  cjuotasof  militia,,to  admit  new  States,  to 
consent  to  th(^  division  and  annexation  of  small  States,  and  to 
pass  a  uniform  law  for  naturalization.  A  two-thirds  majorit}" 
was  to  be  reijuisite  for  tho7>e  acts  which  under  the  Confedera- 
tion had  required  the  assent  of  nine  States  in  Congress,  and 
for  acts  regulating  trade,  levying  an  impost,  or  raising  a  rev- 
enue. A  less  number  than  thirteen  States  (nine,  it  is  intimated) 
should  suffice  to  ratify  the  new  Constitution,  or  subsequently 
to  amend  it.  '^ 

I>ut  next  there  occur  certain  miscellaneous  provisions  that 
are  certainly  without  authority.  They  are  described  as 
securing — 

the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases, 
criminal  as  well  as  civil,  the  fi-eedom  of  the  press,  and  the  prevention  of 
religious  tests  as  qualifications  to  offices  of  trust  or  emolument.  *  *  * 
There  is  also  an  authoi-ity  to  the  national  legislature,  permanently  to  fix 
the  seat  of  tlie  (ieneral  Government,  to  secure  to  authors  the  exclusive 
right  to  their  performances  and  discoveries,  and  to  establish  a  federal 
university.'^ 

Of  these  seven  provisions,  the  last  three  were  introduced 
into  the  Convention  on  August  18,  in  almost  identical  terms, 

"Moore,  T,  3G4. 

fcJuly  20.    Documentary  History,  III,  ?m,  38f). 

c  Moore,  I,  3C6-3(;'J,  arts.  0-10,  IG;  the  rest  are  not  oited  in  the  .speech  by  iminbor. 

''  Moore,  I,  369. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OK    1787.  128 

hy  both  Mudisoii  tuid  Pinckney,  jukI  Piiickney,  we  are  tokl,  in 
a  ijhrase  >\  hicli  woukl  hardlv  be  used  of  features  of  his  orip-i- 
nal  plan,  *'  proposed  for  consideration  several  additional  pow- 
ers which  had  occurred  to  him.'"'^'  Madison,  moreover,  sub- 
mitted his  suj:»'g'estions  "in  order  to  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Detail." ''  Now,  Pinckne3"'s  whole  plan  had  been 
formal]}'  referred  to  that  committee  on  July  24.^  It  is  incon- 
ceivable that  the  methodical  ]\Iadison  should  have  reintroduced 
a  portion  of  it,  three  or  four  weeks  later,  in  order  that  it 
might  be  referred  to  the  same  committee.  It  is  unlikely  tliat 
Pinckne}'  himself  would  have  done  so.  The  same  unlikeli- 
hood nuist  ])e  urged  against  the  provisions  securing  habeas 
corpus  and  freedom  of  the  press  and  forbidding  religious 
tests;  for  on  August  20  Pinckne}'  "submitted  them  to  the 
House,  in  order  to  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Detail."'' 
Concluding  that  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  with  more  or 
less  conlidence,  w^e  can  reconstruct  the  actual  plan  which 
Pinckney  laid  before  the  Convention  on  May  29,  we  ma}'  now 
turn,  finalh',  to  the  question,  If  the  document  which  Pinckne}' 
sent  to  John  Quincy  Adams  was  not  his  original  draft,  what 
was  it?  The  question  is  really  not  a  very  diflicult  one.  The 
similarity  of  the  supposed  draft  to  the  final  Constitution  has 
constant]}'  been  noticed.  Its  rescunblance  to  the  report  of  the 
Conunittee  of  Detail  is  still  closer.^  The  difi'erences  from  the 
latter  consist,  first,  of  some  omissions  or  abbreviations  of  the 
less  important  passages,  as  of  the  tedious  rule  for  deciding 
land  disputes  between  two  States;  secondly,  of  some  additions 
and  alterations,  almost  all  of  which  are  recognizable  fragments 
of  the  genuine  Pinckney  plan,  or  of  Pinckney's  later  sugges- 

"  r)ofiiinentary  History,  III,  o5i.  Both  agiiiii  joined  in  moving'  for  the  fowcr  to  oslali- 
lisli  n  university,  on  September  11;  id.,  715. 

''Ibid.,  r,;)r>. 

'■Ibid.,  423,  4l:i. 

('DocnmeTitary  History,  III,  .'jOa.  Tlie  argnment  might  seem  weakened  by  (lie  exist- 
ence of  the  amendments  which  en.sue,  p.  500,  regarding  the  cabinet;  but  tlieso  go  into 
much  more  detail  than,  probably,  was  done  in  the  plan.  The  motion  for  freedom  of  the 
press  rea [(pears,  as  made  by  Pinckney  and  Gerry,  on  Septemlierll;  Documentary  His- 
tory, III,  717.  Tliat  for  trial  by  jury  in  civil  cases  is  maile  by  llie  same  two  delegates  on 
Scpteml)er  l.i;  id.,  7.5.5. 

<■  This  closeness  of  resemblance  was  noted  by  Sparks  ir.  a  letter  of  Xovembc- 11,  1831, 
to  Madi.son;  IT.  B.  Adams,  .lared  Sparks,  TI,  529.  The  text  of  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Detail  given  in  the  Journal,  pp.  215-230,  and  (from  Madi.son)  in  Documentary  History, 
III,  4IH.58,  is  apparently  more  exact  than  tho.sc  which  arc  given  (from  Wa.shington's 
and  Hrearley's  copies)  in  the  latter  work  I,  2.S.5-308,  33-5-35R,  wlicre.  in  tlie  attcmi)t  to 
represent  the  original  print  by  large  tyi>e  and  the  manuscript  additions  by  small  Idlers, 
some  errors  seem  to  have  crept  in. 


124  AMERICAN    IIISTOKIOAL    ASSOCIATION. 

tioii8.  Such  arc  the  peculiar  provisions  for  the  election  of  the 
Senate  (Articles  -t  and  10  of  the  so-called  ])lan);  those  in  Arti- 
cle ()  for  a  national  luiiversity.  for  the  estal)lishnient  of  a  seat 
of  g-overnnicnt  and  for  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress  in 
its  inunediat(>  area,  for  the  proportioning  of  direct  taxation 
to  the  whole  population  of  the  State  (ho  had  inserted  the 
three-lifths  rule  in  his  plan,  but  had  stated  his  personal  pref- 
erence for  reckoning  in  the  slaves)/'  for  the  prohibition  of 
religious  tests,  for  libei-tv  of  the  press,  and  for  habeas  corpus; 
that  in  Article  8,  for  the  i'eeligil)ility  of  the  President;  and 
that  in  Articl(>  1 L,  securing  to  the  national  Congress  a  negative 
on  State  laws.  All  the  rest  does  not  amount  to  ten  lines,  or  a 
thirtieth  pai-t  of  the  document.  Practicall3%  in  other  words, 
the  so-called  l^incknc}"  plan  consists  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Detail,  as  brought  in  on  August  6,  minus  some  of 
its  lesser  features,  and  plus  some  of  those  of  his  real  plan.  It 
is  not  possible  to  say  that  Pinckne}^  answered  Adams's  request 
])y  sitting  down  and  copying  the  printed  report  of  the  (Com- 
mittee of  Detail,  paraphrasing  to  a  small  extent  here  and 
there,  and  interweaving  as  he  went  along  some  of  the  best- 
remembered  features  of  his  own  plan.  But  it  is  possible  to 
declare  that  if  he  had  done  this  the  result  would  haA^e  been 
precisel}'  like  that  which  in  fact  he  sent  on  to  Washington. 

Moreover,  it  is  an  ascertainable  fact''  that  in  December, 
1818,  when  the  document  was  sent,  he  had  still  in  his  posses- 
sion his  printed  copy  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  De- 
tail, as  secreth'  put  in  type  for  the  use  of  the  members  on 
August  (5,  1787;  foi*  in  the  letter  to  xldams  which  accompanies 
the  di'aft  he  savs: 

I  can  aH.<iire  you  as  a  fact  tliat  for  more  than  four  montliH  and  a  half  out 
of  five  the  jxjwer  of  exehisively  making  treaties,  appointing  foreign  minis- 
ters and  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  given  to  the  Senate,  after  numer- 
ous de})ates  and  consideration  of  the  subject,  botli  in  Committee  of  the 
Wiiole  and  in  the  House.  This  T  n<)t  oidy  aver,  but  can  prove  i)y  printed 
dfx'uijieiits  in  my  possession  to  liave  been  tlie  case.'' 

liy  what  piintcd  document  could  such  a  point  possibly  have 
been  proved  in  1S18,  but  by  the  printed  report  of  the  Com- 
jnittee  of  Detail  i     From  the  nature  of  the  case  there  was  no 


«  Documentary  History,  III,  324. 

bfienible,  That  a  man  may  be  trusted  in  casual  mid  uniiitemled  indications  in  a  letter, 
even  th(iuf<li  in  its  main  ]>nr])()rt  it  lie  <lec'ej)tive. 
'Hunt,  in,  23. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    17S7.  125 

other.  It  i.s  well  known  that  several  members  carefully  pro- 
serv^ed  their  copies/'  It  will  perhaps  be  remembered  that 
though  Madison's  final  explanation,  written  down  in  connec- 
tion with  his  notes,  was  that  Pinckney's  rough  draft,  marked 
with  subsequent  erasures  and  amendments,  may  have  ))een  tlie 
source  of  the  document  he  supplied  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
his  original  conjecture,  expressed  in  conversation  to  Sparks, 
is  said  to  have  been  that  Pinckney  "had  found  a  copy  of  the 
plan  reported  by  the  committee,  with  interlined  amendments, 
perhaps  proposed  by  him,  and,  at  a  distance  of  more  than 
thirty  years,  had  imagined  it  was  his  own  plan.""  If  the  Com- 
mittee of  Detail  is  the  conunittee  meant,  we  may  well  accei)t, 
as  our  final  result,  the  first  half  of  this  earliest  conjecture. 

But,  it  ma}'  be  askinl,  may  not  another  conclusion  be  drawn 
from  the  remarkable  similarity  observed  between  the  docu- 
ment called  the  Pinckne}^  draft  and  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Details  Is  it  certain  that  this  is  not  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  framers  of  the  latter,  who  undoubtedly  had  Pinck- 
ney's  plan  before  them,  for  it  had  been  formally  referred  to 
them,  based  their  work  upon  it,  rather  than  upon  the  Virginia 
resolutions^  The  process  by  which  one  document  is  proved 
l)y  internal  evidence  to  be  copied  or  derived  from  another  is 
often  a  tedious  one  to  expound  or  to  read.  In  the  present 
case  it  can  be  exhibited  in  an  abridged  form.  We  need  not 
enter  into  a  minute  consideration  of  each  phrase.  Substan- 
tially the  same  results,  in  almost  as  convincing  a  form,  can  ])e 
shown  by  following  the  labors  of  the  Committee  of  Detail 
through  inspection  of  the  order  or  succession  of  articles  in 
certain  documents. 

There  are  five  documents  which  show  us  practically  all  that 
we  know  of  the  work  of  the  Connnitt(M>  of  Detail.  The  first 
is  the  series  of  23  resolutions  confided  to  that  committee  on 
July  20,  the  text  of  which,  gathered  from  the  journals  by  Sec- 
retary Adams,  is  to  be  found  in  his  edition  of  the  Journal  and 
in  the  first  volume  of  Elliot.''  llie  second  is  that  document 
in  the  handwriting  of  Ednumd  Randolph  (and  John  Rutledge). 
mend^ers  of  that  committee,  which  Mr.  W.  M.  Meigs  has 

•  r  liiiMcrofl,  II,  119, 139;  Ford,  BiMiograpliy,  i>.  3,  No.  8. 

'■  .louriml,  iii>.  207-213;  Klliol,  I,  i'il-i'iS;  Meigs,  pp.  333-33G.  A  copy  of  those  rcsoliiti..ti.s, 
in  .Iiimes  Wilson's  haiKhvritiiiK,  evidently  P"t  in  form  for  the  \i.ses  of  tlio  committee,  e.\- 
ists  amoiig  his  papers  in  the  lihriiry  of  the  Uistorieal  Soeiety  of  rcnnsylvnnia. 


l'J(i  AMKKICAN    IITSTOKICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

coiulusivoly  proved"  to  ho  a  document  prepared  by  Kundolph 
soon  after  the  i-omniittee  was  appointed,  to  aid  its  members  in 
th(>  task  Ixd'ore  them— the  task  of  ehiborating-  the  !23  resolu- 
tions and  Hllino-  in  details.  This  document  has  been  printed 
in  facsimile  by  iSir.  ^Nleiys.  The  tliird  and  fourth  of  the  live 
documents  alluded  to  have  not  hitherto  been  printed.  Their 
manuscrii)ts  exist  amono-  those  papers  of  James  Wilson,  an- 
other memlier  of  the  Conunittee  of  Detail,  which  are  possessed 
1)3'  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.^'  The  former,  upon 
comi)arison  with  the  Randolph  manuscript,  appears  plainly  to 
represent  a  later  sta^e  of  the  committee's  deliberations,  and 
to  be  the  lesult  of  an  endeavor  to  work  out  Randolph's  sug- 
o-estions  and  to  o-ive  formal  shape  to  his  details.  It  is  of  so 
i^reat  interest  that,  by  th(^  kind  permission  of  the  officers  of 
the  societ}',  it  is  print(^d  in  this  series.  (No.  VIII,  post.) 
The  fourth  document  ditfers  but  little  from  the  final  result  of 
the  conmiittee's  work.  It  exhibits  that  work  in  a  still  later 
stau"e.  That  sta<>"e  is  so  near  the  final  one  that  it  has  not  been 
deemed  necessar}^  to  print  the  document  in  exte/ifio,  but  a  full 
statement  of  the  diflerences  between  it  and  our  fifth  document 
is  presented  herewith  (in  No.  VIII)  immediately  after  the 
third.  The  fifth  is,  of  course,  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Detail,  a  document  often  printed.'  Like  the  first,  it  consists 
of  28  articles,  but  they  are  different.  Most  of  them,  however, 
are  to  be  found,  more  or  less  fully  expressed,  in  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  of  the  series. 

These  live  documents,  as  has  been  said,  enable  us  to  trace 
in  outline  the  history  of  the  committee's  Avork  from  the  time 
of  its  appointment  until,  on  August  6,  it  reported  to  the  Con 
vention.  Now,  without  going"  into  details  respecting  the  text 
of  the  articles  contained  in  them,  let  us  merely  consider  what 
provisions,  speaking  generally,  they  contained,  and  in  what 
ordci'.  Though  it  ma}'  give  an  a})horrent  appearance  to  the 
page,  this  can  most  clearly  and  succinctl}'  be  done  by  denot- 
ing each  provision  by  tlu^  number  which  it  (or  its  amplified 
eijuivalent)  ])ears  in  the  articles  and  sections  of  the  fifth  and 
final  document,  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Detail.    Pur- 


"The  Growth  of  the  Constitution,  ])]).  317-32-1. 

01  am  grwitly  indobturl  to  Mr.  Joliii  W.  .lordiui,  lil)r;ii'inii  of  the  socioty,  for  ffivorinp 
nie  with  fojiies  of  these  two  dociiinents. 

fDocunieiitiiry  Uistory,  III,  Ml-loiS;  .loiinial  of  181'j,  pp.  215-2:50;  also  in  Doe.  Hist.,  I, 
285-308,  335-358,  and  in  KUiol,  I,  224-230;  but  see  note  <',  on  p.  123,  supra. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION"    OF    1787.  127 

suino-  this  mode  of  expression,  then,  we  should  say  thiit  the 
first  document,  the  resohitions  referred  to  the  committee, 
contains  the  following  provisions,  in  the  following  order:  II, 
III,  IV,  1;  lY,  2;  VL  9;  V,  1;  V,  8;  V,  2;  VI,  9;  VI,  12:  Vll,  1; 
VIll,  IV,  3;  IV,  4;  VII,  3;  IV.  5;  V.  1:  X,  VI,  13;  XI,  1, 
2,  3;  XVII,  XVIII.  XIX,  XX,  XXII,  V,  1.  The  second, 
the  Kanclolph  document  reproduced  ])y  Mr.  Meigs,  contains 
the  following:   III,  IV,  2,  3,  4,  1;   VI,  1,  3,  6,  5,  9;   IV,  7; 

VI,  8;  V,  1,  3,  2  (VI,  3,  6,  5,  9,  8);  VII,  1,  4,  5,  0;  X,  VI,  13; 
XI,  XVII,  XVIII,  XX.  XXII,  XIX,  XXI,  XXIII.  The 
third  document,  the  first  of  the  two  Wilson  drafts,  runs  thus 
if  we  follow  the  same  system  of  notation  and  omit  for  the 
present  from  consideration  certain  extraneous  matter  which 
is  found  embedded  in  the  manuscript:  I,  II,   III,  IV,  1-4; 

VII,  3:  IV,  5-7;  V,  1,  2;  IX,  1;  V,  3;  VI,  12;  VI,  3;  V,  4; 
VI,  4,  1,  2,  6,  8,  5b,  9,  11,  10,  7.  5a  (then  other  matter,  of 
which    anon):    XVII-XX,    XXII,    XXI,    XXIII,   VI,   13; 

-IX,  2:  IX,  3.  The  fourth  of  our  documents  would  lie  repre- 
sented thus:  I-VIII,  XII.  XIII.  IX-XI,  XVII,  XVIII, 
XIV-XVI,  XIX,  XX,  XXII.  XXI,  XXIII. 

Not  a  little  instruction  might  be  di-rived  from  this  record 
of  the  transnnitations  which  our  fundamental  document,  or 
its  germ,  underwent  during  these  eleven  days  at  the  hands  of 
the  conunittee.  But  our  present  concern  is  only  with  its 
bearings  on  the  problem  of  the  Pinckney  plan  and  specifically 
on  the  question — the  last  remaining  question,  it  is  submitted — 
whether  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Detail  might  not 
after  all  have  T)een  modeled  on  the  Pincknc}'  plan  i-ather  than 
the  latter  on  the  former.  We  have  shown,  by  a  somewhat 
mechanical  device,  what  was  thv  actual  genesis  of  the  com- 
mittee's report.  Let  anyone  who  is  not  fatally  repelled  by 
the  notation  examine  the  results  with  care,  and  then  consider 
the  fact  that  the  articles  of  the  so-called  Pinckney  plan,  so 
far  as  they  extend  (it  has  notliing  correspondijig  to  Articles 
XXII  and  XXIII).  run  in  exactly  the  same  order  as  those  of 
the  conunittee's  report,  and  that  indeed  ahnost  al)Solutely  the 
same  order  of  clauses  is  preserved  within  the  individual  arti- 
cles. Then  let  any  person  who  has  ever  attended  a  conunittee 
meeting,  and  who  r(Mneml)ers  the  process  ])y  which  an  impoi'- 
taiit  document  was  ground  out,  ask  himself  wliat  the  chance 
is  that  a  document  which  was  one  of  several  put  into  the 


128  AMKKICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

hopper  oil  . I  Illy  26  should,  after  such  peruuitiitions  as  those 
abo\e  e\liihitecl.emcrj>e  on  August  (>  as  the  final  result  of  the 
oomniittee's  deliberations,  with  almost  exactly  the  provisions 
with  which  it  entered,  and  in  almost  exactly  the  same  order. 
This,  it  should  be  observed,  is  an  argument  against  the  theory 
of  wholesale  copying  fi-om  Pinckney.  It  does  not  militate 
against  the  supposition  that  the  committee,  having  Pinckney's 
plan  before  them,  may  have  borrowed  from  it  some  portions. 


^^'hen  all  of  this  paper  ))ut  the  last  four  paragraphs  had 
been  "written,  there  came  to  the  writer  a  manuscript  contain- 
ing large  portions  of  the  original  text  of  the  long-lost  Pinck- 
ney plan. 

Tlieii  felt  I  like  some  watcher  of  the  skies 
When  a  new  planet  swims  into  his  ken; 

or,  more  exactly,  like  one  before  whose  telescope  appears  an 
asteroid  wdiich  pursues  exactly  the  orbit  that  "he  had  predicted. 
The  manuscript  alluded  to  was  a  copy  of  James  Wilson's  rough 
draft,  discussed  on  the  preceding  pages,  and  printed  in  a  later 
section  (VIII).  In  the  midst  of  it  there  was  a  manifest  break 
in  text  and  sense,  followed  by  passages  which  w  ere  readily 
perceived  to  be  excerpts  from  the  Paterson  plan.  Then  came 
a  series  of  propositions  which  were  not  less  easily  identified 
as  parts  of  the  much-sought  Pinckney  plan.  Then  Wilson's 
rough  draft  was  resumed  at  a  later  point  than  that  at  which 
it  was  interrupted.  Investigation  showed  that  in  the  volume 
of  Wilson  papers  possessed  by  the  Historical  Society  of 
Pennsylvania,  from  which  the  copy  came,  there  are  four  sheets 
of  manuscript  pertaining  to  the  work  of  the  Committee  of 
Detail.  The  fourth  in  the  order  of  binding  contains  those  res- 
olutions of  the  Convention  which  were  turned  over  to  the  com- 
mittee at  its  appointment  as  the  main  basis  of  its  work.  The 
first  and  third  are  the  first  and  third  sheets  of  Wilson's  rough 
draft,  based  on  the  Kandolph  paper  presented  by  Mr.  Meigs. 
Its  second  sheet  is  missing.  In  its  place  is  sandwiched-in  a 
half -sheet  containing  the  excerpts  from  the  New  Jersey  and 
Pinckney  plans  already  mentioned.  A  possible  reason  for 
their  being  found  at  this  point  is  that,  in  the  main,  they  relate 
to  what  would  naturally  be  the  middle  portion  of  Wilson's 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  129 

draft.  They  relate  for  the  most  part  to  the  powers  of  Coji- 
j^ress,  of  the  Executive,  and  of  the  Judiciar\'.  These  three  mat- 
ters had  received  little  elaboration  in  the  Virginia  plan  or  in  the 
twenty-three  resolutions  of  July  26,  It  was  natural  that  Wil- 
son, in  essaying-  the  task  of  amplifying  this  portion  of  the 
8cherae,,should  draw  off  such  passages  as  were  germane  to  it 
from  the  other  two  documents  which,  it  will  be  remembered, 
had  likewise  been  referred  to  his  committee.  At  all  events, 
this  is  what  appears  to  have  been  done.  The  half-sheet  is 
written  with  a  liner  pen  than  the  sheets  which  precede  and 
follow  (though  in  Wilson's  own  hand)  and  with  a  diti'erent 
spacing.  It  is  distinctly  an  interpolation,  and  will  not  be 
printed  with  the  rest  in  section  No.  VIII.  It  is  inserted  here. 
First  are  given  the  extracts  from  the  Paterson  plan. 

All  Appeal  for  the  Correction  of  all  P>rors  both  in  Law  and  Fact. 

That  the  United  States  in  Congrens  be  anthorised — to  pass  Acts  for  rais- 
ing a  Revenue — by  levying  Duties  on  all  Goods  and  Merchandise  of  foreijin 
Growth  or  ^Manufacture  imported  into  any  Part  of  the  United  States — by 
Stamps  on  Paper  Vellum  or  Parchment — and  by  a  Postage  on  all  Letters 
and  Packages  passing  ttirough  the  general  Post-Ofhce,  to  be  applied  to  sucli 
foederal  Purposes  as  they  shall  deem  proper  and  expedient — to  make  Rules 
and  Regulations  for  the  Collection  thereof — to  pass  Acts  for  the  Regulation 
of  Trade  and  Commerce  as  well  with  foreign  Nations  as  with  each  other." 

That  the  Executive  direct  all  military  Operations. 

That  the  Judiciary  have  Authority  to  hear  and  determine  all  Impeach- 
ments of  foederal  Officers;  and,  by  Way  of  Appeal,  in  all  Cases  touching 
the  Rights  of  Andiassadors — in  all  Cases  of  Capture  from  an  Enemy — in 
all  Cases  of  Piracies  and  Felonies  on  the  high  Seas — in  all  Cases  in  which 
Foreigners  may  be  interested  in  the  Construction  of  any  Treaty,  or  which 
may  arise  on  any  Act  for  regulating  Trade  or  collecting  Revenue. '' 

If  any  State,  or  any  Body  of  Men  in  any  State  shall  oppose  or  prevent 
the  carrying  into  Execution  the  A(;ts  or  Treaties  of  the  United  States;  the 
Executive  shall  be  authorised  to  enforce  and  compel  Obedience  by  calling 
forth  the  Powers  of  the  United  States. 

That  the  Rule  for  Naturalization  ought  to  be  same  in  every  Stat**. 

These  portions  of  the  New  Jersey  draft  require  little  expla- 
nation. The  first  line  is  a  misplaced  phrase  from  the  end  of 
tlu!  second  article.  The  next  paragra])h  is  derived  from  that 
article  and  contains  such  important  provisions  in  it  as  are  not 
found  in  the  twenty-three  resohitions  of  July  26,  which  is 
just  what  we  should  expect  upon  the  theory  al)ove  suggested 

"Thf  margin  adds:  "  to  lay  and  collect  taxes." 

''The  margin  adds:  "or  on  the  Law  of  Nations,  or  general  eoniniercial  or  niiiriiic 
Laws..' 

II.  Doc.  461,  pt  1 1» 


i;U)  AMKIUCAN    HISTOllICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

as  ti)  the  rrasi)ns  for  nuikino-  these  mcmoniiida.  Siniihirly, 
the  uQxt  soiitoiK'c  contains  the  one  provision  of  Patcrson's 
fourth  proposal  whicli  is  not  in  the  twenty-three  resolutions. 
The  next  paragraph  contains  the  most  essential  portions  of 
Faterson's  Article  5,  in  so  far  as  these  were  not  contained  in 
the  other  or  main  document  which  the  connuittee  had  before 
it;  most  of  them,  however,  were  in  Randolph's  plan.  The 
provisions  for  cocMvion  and  for  naturalization  are,  for  similar 
ri>asons.  copied  out  of  the  seventh  and  tenth  of  Paterson's 
articles."  Then  comes  in  the  manuscript  a  space  unusually 
wide,  and  then,  obviously  \n-oceedmg  jjer  saltuin  to  the  heg'in- 
ning-  of  a  fresh  document,  we  read  a  longer  group  of  extracts 
from  the  ]*inckney  plan.''  (The  italics  are  not  in  the  original, 
but  are  used  for  a  purpose  which  will  be  explained  later.) 

The  Legihilature  shall  consist  of  two  distinct  Branches — a  Senate  and  a 
House  of  Delc^nites,  each  of  which  shall  have  a  Negative  on  the  other,  and 
shall  be  sliled  the  U.  S.  in  Congress  assembled. 

Each  Hon^e  shalf  appoint  its  own  Speaker  and  other  Officers,  and  settle  its 
own  Bides  of  Proceedinrj;  but  neither  the  Senate  nor  H.  D.  shall  hare  the  Power 
to  adjourn  far  more  than         Days,  vutliout  the  Consent  of  both. 

There  shall  1)0  a  President,  in  which  the  Ex.  Authority  of  the  U.  S. 
shall  be  vested.  It  shall  l)e  his  Duty  to  inform  the  Legislature  of  the  Omdi- 
tion  of  U.  S.  so  far  as  may  resjaect  his  Department — to  recommend  Matters  to 
tlieir  Consideration — -to  correspond  with  the  Executives  of  tluf  several  States — to 
attend  to  the  Execution  of  the  Laws  of  the  U.  S. — to  transact  Affairs  with 
the  Ofticers  of  Government,  civil  and  military — to  expedite  all  such  Meas- 
ures as  may  be  resolved  on  l)y  the  Legislature — to  inspect  the  Departments* 
of  foreign  Affairs — War — Treasury — Admiralty — to  reside  where  the  Legis- 
lature shall  sit — to  roniinission  all  Officers,  and  keep  the  Great  Seal  of  U.  S. 
He  shall,  hij  Vhiiw  o/  his  Office,  he  Commander  in  Chief  of  the  Land  Forces  of 
U.  S.  and  Admiral  of  their  Xavij.  He  shall  have  Power  to  r(jnvene  the  Legisla- 
ture on  e.rtraordivarii  Occasions — to  prorogue  them,  provided  such  Proroga- 
tion shall  not  exceed  Days  in  the  space  of  any  .  He  may 
suspend  Officers,  civil  and  military. 

The  Legislature  of  U.  S.  shall  have  the  exclusive  Power — of  raising  a 
militanj  Land  Force — of  equiping  a.  Navy— of  rating  and  causing  public 
Taxes  to  be  levied — of  regulating  the  Trade  of  the  several  States  as 
well  with  foreign  Nations  as  with  each  other — of  levying  Duties  upon 
Imports  and  Exports — of  establishing  Post-Offices  and  raising  a  Revenue 
from  them — of  regulating  Indian  Affairs — of  coining  Money — fixing  the 
Standard  of  Weights  and  Measures — of  determining  in  what  Species  of 
Money  the  public  Treasury  shall  be  supplied. 

"As  miraljcTc'fl  ill  the  eleven-article  texts;  see  p.  13-1,  post. 

''Immediately  upon  discovering  this  document,  I  communicated  it  to  the  American 
Historical  Review,  and  it  was  printed  in  the  section  devoted  to  documents,  in  the  num- 
ber for  April,  iy03  (VIH.  509-511). 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    <>F    1787.  131 

The  foederal  judicial  (\)urt  shall  try  Officers  of  the  V.  S.  for  all  Crinies 
i^c.  in  their  Offices. 

The  Legislature  of  IT.  S.  shall  have  the  exclusive  Kigiit  of  instituting  in 
each  .State  a  Court  of  Admiralty  for  hearing  and  determining  maritime 
Causes. 

The  Power  of  impeaching  uliall  be  vested  in  iJie  II.  I).  The  Senators  and 
Judges  of  the  foederal  Court,  be  a  Court  for  trying  Impeachments. 

The  Legislature  of  IT.  S.  shall  po.«sess  the  exclusive  Right  of  establislnng 
the  Ciovernment  ami  Discipline  of  the  Militia  (,*tc. — (did  of  orderimj  the 
Mint  la  of  anil  Slate  to  ati//  Place  within  U.  S. 

Since  the  preceding-  document  follows  Paterson  .so  nearly 
verbatim,  we  are  w^arranted  in  .supposino-  that  thi.s,  as  far  as 
it  goes,  is  an  accurate  transcript.  But  what  pi'ove.s  it  to  be 
Pinckne3''s  plan:!  First,  W(>  have  here  a  body  of  material 
plainl}^  derived  from  two  documents,  iind  exactly  meeting 
certain  needs  which  we  know,  from  the  nature  of  the  twenty- 
three  resolutions  of  July  2(),  the  Committee  of  Detail  must 
have  felt;  one  of  the  two  is  the  second  of  th(>  pieces  which  Jiad 
been  referred  to  them;  it  is  most  likcdy  that  the  other  is  the 
third.  Secondly,  the  more  numerous  house  is  termed  •'Mouse 
of  Delegates,''  the  name  which  it  bore  in  Piiickne3'\s  plan, 
according-  to  Kead's  letter  and  Pinckney's  •'Ohservations,'" 
l)ut  in  no  other  of  the  known  projects.  Thirdly,  out  of  some 
fort}-  provisions  given  in  the  text  above,  not  one  is  in  coiillict 
with  what  we  otherwis(i  know  of  Pinckney's  real  i)lan,  devel- 
oped according  to  the  method  established  on  previous  pages. 
It  is  impo.ssil)lenot  to  feel  that  the  ne\\ly  discovered  document 
and  the  preceding  investigation  conliriu  each  other  to  a  re- 
ujarkable  degree;  not  to  be  gratilied  by  so  signal  a  corrol)ora- 
tion,  and  not  to  regret  that  the  whole  plan  can  not' be  fotmd." 

The  discover}-  of  these  documents  shows  tiiat  the  reference 
of  the  New  Jersey  and  Pinckney  plans  to  the  Connnittee  ol" 
Detail  was  not,  as  has  generally  been  assumed,  a  mere  smoth- 
ering of  them.  Thev  were  used.  To  what  effect  they  were 
used  may  be  .seen  l)y  comparing  them  w-ith  som(>  of  those  Hve 
papers  which,  as  has  been  said,  exhibit  in  successive  .stages 
the  work  of  the  Conunittee  of  Detail.  Pater.son's  propo.sals 
for  a  power  to  levy  duties  on  imports,  to  regidate  commerc(>, 
to  make  uniform  the  rules  for  naturalization,  to  give  tli(> 
Executive  the  power  to  direct  all   militaiy  ojxM'ation.s,  and  to 

"  '•  W.  S.  E.  of  S.  C,"  in  Do  Huw's  Rcviow,  X.XXIV,  iV.i,  iuhI  ii.  s.  I,  :!7.'),  siiys  tlial  "  The 
original  draft,  in  his  [I'inclcney's]  own  ImiidwritiuK,  with  notcsund  inleilineations,  was 
preserved  among  his  papers,"  but  implies  that  it  i)erishe<l  in  tlir  t;harleston  lire  of  isci. 


132  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATIOlSr. 

ijivo  tlu>  Federal  courts  iui"isdictioii  over  euses  relatini'"  to 
amhiissadors,  and  liis  provisions  for  tiic  return  of  fuo-jtives 
from  justice,  all  ai)])eai-  in  lli(>  repoi't  of  the  Conniiittcc  of 
Detail:  l)ut  none  of  these  are  to  he  found  in  the  twentj'^-three 
resolutions,  though  it  must  he  said  that  the  lirst  two  were  in 
ITSTthe  oonnnonplaces  of  constitutional  reform.  Pinckney's 
plan.  amoni>-  the  forty  provisions  (roughly  speakino)  which 
ar(>  preserved  to  u,s  in  the  text  above,  contains  no  fewer  than 
nineteen  or  twenty  that  are  to  ])e  found  in  the  committee's 
report,  but  were  not  in  the  twent3^-three  resolutions  referred 
to  them  at  the  l)eoinning-  of  their  work,  nor  in  the  Virginia 
resolutions,  nor  in  those  oti'ered  ])y  Paterson.  They  are 
marked  ])y  italics  in  the  text  above.  Taken  together,  the}^ 
constitute  a  noteworth}^  contribution  for  the  youngest  dele- 
gate to  have  made,  and  show  that  the  labor  he  spent  in  draw- 
ing up  a  plan  before  the  Convention  l)egan  its  work  was  not 
expended  in  \  ain. 

In  some  cases  we  can  trace  tiie  process  bv  which  these  por- 
tions of  Pinckney's  scheme  found  their  way  into  the  commit- 
tee's report.  Thirteen  of  them  are  to  be  found  in  Mr.  Meigs's 
facsimile  of  the  Randolph  draft,  which  stands  second  among 
the  papers  that  mark  the  committee's  progress.  Of  these, 
four,  it  is  (exceedingly  interesting  to  observe  (and  also  one 
respecting  Indian  affairs,  which  did  not  take  effect),  stand 
minuted  in  tlie  margin  or  interlined  in  the  text  by  the  hand  of 
John  Rutledge,  of  South  Carolina,  colleague  of  Pinckney  and 
representative  of  their  State  upon  thecommittee.«  Another, 
though  it  does  not  appear  in  the  Randolph  draft,  is  found 
slipping  from  the  margin  into  the  text  of  Wilson's  rough 
draft,  the  paper  next  in  order  of  development.* 

It  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  remark,  in  conclusion,  that  as  a 
maker  of  the  Constitution  Charles  Pinckney  evidently  deserves 
to  stand  higher  than  he  has  stood  of  late  years,  and  that  he 
would  ha\^e  a  better  chance  of  doing  so  if  in  his  old  age  he  had 
not  claimed  so  much.'' 


a  I  refer  to  the  words  "  to  regulate  weights  and  measures,"  in  the  margin  of  Mr.  Meigs's 
Plate  V,  the  words  "  and  equip  fleets,"  interlined  in  the  text  nearly  opposite,  and  in  the 
margin  of  Plate  VI  the  phrases  "  to  be  commander  in  chief  of  the  land  and  naval  forces 
of  the  Union,"  and  "  shall  propose  to  the  legislature  from  time  to  time,  by  speech  or 
message,  such  matters  as  concern  the  Tnion." 

''The  jjrovision  tliat  each  house  shall  appoint  its  presiding  otticcr. 

c  Beside  his  •'  plan,"  we  owe  to  his  later  suggestion  the  whole  or  part  of  Art.  I,  §  «,  els. 
4,  8,  11, 17,  §  9,  cl.  2,  and  Art.  VI,  §  3,  cl.  2. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION"    OF    1787.  133 

YI.  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  .lERSEY  PLAN. 

On  the  loth  of  June,  according  to  the  journal  of  the  Con- 
vention," "  Mr.  Faterson  submitted  several  resohitions  to  the 
consideration  of  the  House,  which  he  read  in  his  place,  and 
afterwards  delivered  in  at  the  secretary's  table,'*'  and  whicli 
have  since  been  famous  as  the  New  Jersey  or  Faterson  plan. 
But  of  this  document,  or  series  of  resolutions,  four  different 
texts  exist,  and  it  can  be  declared  with  confidence  that  none 
of  them  precisely  represents  the  original  as  presented  on 
June  15. 

Tn  order  to  an  intelligent  investigation  of  these  texts,  it  is 
necessary  first  to  recall  what  has  hitherto  been  known  of  the 
genesis  of  the  document.  On  June  13  the  Conunittee  of  the 
Whole  had  practically  completed  its  report,  l)ased  on  the  \'ir- 
ginia  plan.     On  Jiuie  11 — 

IVIr.  Patersoii  ()l)served  to  the  Convention  that  it  was  the  vvisli  of  several 
tleputations,  particuhirly  that  of  New  Jersey,  tliat  further  time  might  he 
allowed  them  to  contemplate  the  plan  reported  from  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  to  digest  one  purely  federal  and  contradistinguished  from  that 
reported  plan.'' 

The  next  day.  June  15,  he  '"  laid  ])efore  the  Convention  the 
plan  which  he  said  several  of  the  deputations  wished  to  be 
su])stituted  in  place  of  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Randolph." 
Madison  states  its  origin  thus:' 

This  plan  had  heen  concerted  among  the  deputations,  or  memhers 
thereof,  from  Conne(!ti(;ut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  perhaps 
Mr.  Martin,  from  Maryland,  who  made  with  them  a  common  cause  on 
different  jirincijiles. 

Luther  Martin,  in  his  remarks  before  the  Maryland  legis- 
lature, definitely  claims  a  share  in  its  preparation,  saying: 

We  then  thought  it  nec(>ssary  to  hring  forward  the  i)ropositions  which 
such  of  us  who  had  disapproved  the  plan  hefore  [suhnntted?]  had  pre- 
pared. The  memhers  who  prepared  these  resolutions  were  principally  of 
the  Connecticut,  New  York,  Jersey,  Delaware,  and  INIaryland  delega- 
tions. The  Hon.  Mr.  Faterson,  of  the  Jerseys,  laid  tiiem  hefore  the 
Convention.  Of  these  propositions  1  am  in  possession  of  a  copy,  which  1 
shall  heg  leave  to  read  to  you.'' 


'<  Documentary  History,  I,  64,  05. 

''IfU,  III,  12:i. 

<•  Id.,  Ill,  T24;  (.ilpiii,  1 1,  stl'i,  803;  EUiot,  V,  191;  Huiit.Writiiijf.s  of  Mailiwoii,  MI,  105,100. 

f'Gt'iiuiiic  Iiifi.riiiiitioii,  ill  Vate.s'  SctTC't  Proceedings,  ed.  l.s.'l,  \>   n»;  Klliot,  I,  :$49. 


KU  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  Hiuicroft  says  that  tlu>  iiiforniants  of  the  English  Gov- 
onninMit  imiiUHl  (JoN'tM'iior  Li\in_i>"stoii  as  tho  author/' 

Of  the  Hvo  texts  which  have  hccn  stated  to  be  in  existence 
it  nia}'  be  i)1'o])(M'  to  take  into  consideration  first  that  which  is 
ij-iven  by  Madison.  It  is  to  he  i'ouiid  in  his  notes  as  printed 
in  the  Docunientaiy  Ilistoi'v/'  in  Gilpin,'"  in  the  tifth  volume 
of  KUiot,"'  and  in  the  third  \()lunie  of  Hunt's  edition  of  the 
\\'j'itini>'s  of  James  Madison.'  It  consists  of  nine  articles. 
The  tirst  declares  that  the  Articles  of  Confederation  should 
be  made  adiMjuate;  the  second  gives  CongTcss  additional 
sources  of  re\-enue  and  the  right  to  regulate  commerce;  the 
third  proposes  a  new  plan  for  the  assessment  and  coll(M'tion 
of  requisitions;  the  fourth  providers  a  plural  Executive;  the 
tifth  a  supreme  Federal  judiciary;  the  sixth  makes  the  acts 
and  treaties  made  by  Congress  the  supreme  law  of  the  States; 
the  seventh  requires  provision  for  the  admission  of  new 
States;  the  eighth  for  uniform  ruh's  of  naturalization;  the 
ninth  relates  to  the  citizen  of  one  State  who  commits  offenses 
in  another.     This  text  we  will  call  A. 

Another,  which  may  })v  called  1^,  is  that  which  is  presented 
as  an  appendix  to  the  official  journal  of  the  Convention,  in 
the  first  volume  of  the  Documentary  History.;'"  is  inserted  in 
the  text  of  that  record  in  the  Journal  of  1819,^  and  is  taken 
from  the  latter  into  Elliot''  and  Yates.'  The  manuscript  from 
which  it  is  copied  is  declared,  in  the  Journal  of  1819,''  to  have 
been  derived  from  Gen.  Joseph  Bloomtield,  executor  of  David 
Brearley^  and  the  fact  that  it  is  one  of  the  Brearley  manu- 
scripts also  appears  in  the  pages  of  the  Documentary  History. 
As  Brearl(>y  was  a  member  of  the  New  Jersey  delegation,  the 
paper  might  seem  entitled  to  considerable  authority.  Its 
text,  however,  differs  from  that  which  we  have  called  A  in 
several  particulars.  To  Ijegin  with,  it  has  eleven  articles  in- 
stead of  nine.     Those  which  do  not  appear  in  A  are  the  sixth 

"History  of  the  Formiitioji  of  the  Constitution,  IT,  '10,  Tiotc  2.    Sec  Report  on  Canadian 
Archives  for  1,S90,  p.  101. 
''HI,  Vlft-VIK- 
'■IT,  8fi3-8«7. 
rfPp.  191-193. 
c  Pp.  lGG-170. 
/I,  319-323. 
f/Pp.  ]i;3-127. 

'I First  ed.,  IV,  70-72;  "second"  (tliird)  cd.,  I,  175-177. 
(Ed.  1821,  pp.  221-224. 
J  Pp.  11,  123. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  135 

resolution,  providing-,  as  had  been  provided  in  the  fourteenth 
article  of  Randolph's  plan  and  in  the  eighteenth  of  the  report 
of  the  Conuiiittee  of  the  \Miole.  and  in  their  exact  huipuao-e, 
"that  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary  powers  within 
the  several  States  ought  to  be  bound  by  oath  to  support  the 
Articles  of  Union;"  and  the  ninth  resolution  of  B,  which  de- 
clares ""that  provision  ought  to  be  made  for  hearing  and  de- 
ciding upon  all  disputes  arising  between  the  United  States  and 
an  individual  State  respecting  territory."  These  are  not  un- 
important provisions.  Furthermore,  in  the  fourth  resolution, 
relating  to  the  Executive,  A  provides  that  the}"  shall  be  "re- 
mova])le  b}"  Congress  on  application  by  a  majority  of  the 
executives  of  the  several  States,'*'  whereas  B  reads  "remova- 
ble on  impeachment  and  conviction  for  malpractice  or  neglect 
of  duty  b}^  Congress  on  application  l)y  a  majorit}'  of  the  execu- 
tives of  the  several  States."  This  awkward  provision  wears 
plainly  the  aspect  of  an  attempt  to  join,  without  fusing,  two 
independent  devices  for  getting  rid  of  an  unacceptable  Execu- 
tive. We  shall  be  helped  in  understanding  it  if  Ave  observe  a 
bit  of  the  proceedings  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  June  2. 
It  was  moved  by  one  of  the  Delaware  members.  Dickinson, 
seconded  by  another,  Bedford,  })oth  presuma))ly  concerned 
afterwards  in  concocting  the  Jerse}'  plan,  to  add  the  words 
"to  be  removable  1)y  the  National  Legishiture  upon  recjuest  by 
a  majority  of  the  legislatures  of  the  individual  States."  This 
was  voted  down,  Delaware  alone  voting  in  the  aflirmative. 
Then  the  committee  proceeded  to  add  the  words  which  appear 
in  the  report  of  the  Conmiittee  of  the  Whole:  "to  be  rcmov- 
al)le  on  impeachnuMit  and  conviction  of  malpractice  or  neglect 
of  dut3\""  The  former  of  these  two  devices  reappears, 
slightly  modified,  in  text  A  of  the  resolutions  prepared  by  the 
uKMubers  from  Delaware  and  the  other  small  States.  P»oth 
appear  in  B. 

In  reading  th(>  Journal  of  1811)  Mr.  Madison's  attention  was 
arrested  by  these  discrepancies.  In  a  footnote  to  his  ivcord 
of  the  del)ates,  inserted  immediately  after  his  nin(^ -article  t(^xt 
of  th(^  New  Jersey  resolves,  he  says: 

This  copy  of  Mr.  ratiTsoii's  i)r<)i)Ositi()ii.s  varieH  in  a  few  clauses  from 
tliat  in  the  printed  journal  furnished  from  the  papers  of  Mr.  Hn-arley,  a 

"  Dooumontary  History,  I,  206, 207;  III,  48-51.  Madison  hiifl  himself  suggested  impeaeh- 
nu'iit  (III  tlu'  piccediiiK  diiy,  Juno  1,  in  remarks  wliich  lie  does  not  report,  but  which  are 
Kiven  by  I'ierce,  American  JIist(iricnl  Kcview,  III,  3-1. 


186  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

wUoajrue  of  Mr.  Paterpon.  A  conlidence  is  felt,  not\vitb8tan(lin<;,  in  its 
a<'curacy.  Tliat  tlie  copy  in  the  journal  is  nijt  (uitirely  correct  is  shown 
by  the  ensuing  speech  of  Mr.  Wilson  (June  16),  in  which  he  refers  to  the 
mode  of  removing  the  Executive  by  impeachment  and  conviction  as  a  fea- 
ture in  the  Virginia  jtlan,  forming  one  of  its  contrasts  to  that  of  Mr.  Pater- 
son  which  proposed  a  removal  on  the  application  of  a  majority  of  the 
executives  of  the  States.  In  tlu^  copy  printed  in  the  journal  the  two 
modes  are  combined  in  the  .same  clause,  whether  through  inadvertence  or 
as  a  contomi^latcil  amendment  docs  not  appear.'^' 

The  I'oniarks  of  Wilson  to  which  ^ladi.soii  alhido.s  occur  in 
the  course  of  a  series  of  contrasts  which  Wilson  draws  ])e- 
tween  the  two  })Uins,  That  the  point  which  Madison  makes 
in  this  footnote  is  well  taken  appears  not  onl}'  from  hi.s  own 
report  of  what  Wilson  said,  hut  from  such  other  reports  as 
have  come  down  to  us/'  In  his  series  of  parallels,  Wilson 
sa3's  that  in  the  Virginia  plan  the  Executive  is  to  be  '"  remov- 
able on  impeachment  and  conviction,"  in  the  other  to  be 
'•  removal )le  at  the  instance  of  a  majority  of  the  executives  of 
the  States."     So  far,  then,  the  evidence  is  in  favor  of  text  A. 

But  the  little  manuscript  book  already  spoken  of  as  pre- 
served among  Judge  Paterson's  papers  contains  his  own  ver- 
sion of  his  resolutions,  and  this  text  agrees  in  every  substantial 
particular  with  B.'"  It  contains  the  two  additional  articles, 
the  sixth  and  the  ninth  of  B's  numbering,  and  it  presents  the 
same  provisions  as  are  given  ])y  B  with  respect  to  the  removal 
of  the  Executive.  But  the  maimer  in  which  it  presents  them 
is  interesting,  and  may  explain  the  form  in  which  they  appear 
in  the  Brearley  version,  B.  The  resolutions  are  given  on  the 
right-hand  pages  of  the  book.  Certain  phrases  accidentally 
omitted  in  copying  are  given  with  asterisks  on  the  left-hand 
pages,  other  asterisks  marking  the  places  of  their  insertion 
on  the  right-hand  pages.  But  in  this  instance  of  the  fourth 
article,  we  have,  without  asterisks,  on  the  right-hand  page 
the  words,  "  and  removea])le  on  Impeachment  and  Conviction 
for  Mal-Practice,  or  Neglect  of  Duty,''  and  opposite  them  on 
the  left-hand  page  the  words  "  by  Congress  on  Application 
by  a  Majority  of  the  Executives  of  the  several  States."  Thus 
placed,  the  two  phrases  have  the  appearance  of  being  alter- 

a  Documentary  History,  III,  128;  Hunt,  III,  170. 

Ubid.,  Ill,  133;  Gilpin,  II,  872;  Elliot,  V,  19.');  Hunt,  III,  176;  Yates,  p.  126,  and  Elliot, 
1,411.    Paterson's  notes  in  George  Bancroft's  copies  at  the  Lenox  Library,  p.  182. 

fPaterson  has  "subjects"  in  the  seventh  resolution,  where  Brearley  has  "subjects" 
stricken  out  and  "citizens"  written  instead. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  137 

native  propo.sals.  upon  which  the  coterie  who  framed  the  res- 
hitions  had  not  come,  according  to  Patersoivs  subsequent 
memory,  to  a  definite  conchision.  It  would  have  been  likely 
that  this  should  be  the  case,  if  the  Dehxware  members  had 
preferred  the  one  form,  while  the  rest  had  acquiesced  in 
that  which  we  see  in  the  report  of  the  Connnittee  of  the 
Whole?  If  in  Brearley's  copy  the  alternative  gloss  had  crept 
from  the  margin  into  the  text  w^hich  Wilson  knew,  the  form 
which  W(^  find  in  Article  -i  of  B  would  be  accounted  for/' 
That  the  representatives  of  the  smaller  States  were  not  dis- 
posed to  be  rigid  about  all  details -of  their  plan  is  evidenced  by 
Dickinson's  remark  on  June  19,  wIkmi  the  discussion  of  the 
tw^o  plans  was  ahnost  concluded,  that  he  supposed  there  were 
o-ood  regulations  in  both,  and  that  the  committee  might  do 
well,  after  comparison,  to  consolidate  such  parts  of  them  as 
they  might  approve.* 

But  it  would  be  idle  to  dispute  whether  A  or  H  is  to  ])o  pre- 
ferred, in  view  of  the  fact  that  neither  of  them  can  possi})ly 
be  the  original  text  of  the  resolutions  brought  in  by  Paterson 
on  June  15.  This  can  l)e  demonstrated  from  the  jouriial  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  Juno  18,  when,  the  New 
Jersey  propositions  being  under  discussion,  Dickinson  moved 
"to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  first  resolution  sub- 
mitted l)y  Mr.  Paterson,  in  order  to  introcUice  the  following, 
namely,''  or  (as  we  may  read  in  words  deleted  ]»y  the  secretary 
but  still  preserved  in  the  manuscript) — 

to  substitute  the  following  resolution  in  the  place  of  the  first  resolution 
subinitted  by  Mr.  Paterson,  namely,  Retfolved,  That  the  Articles  of  Confed- 
eration ought  to  be  revised  and  amended,  so  as  to  render  the  CJovernnient 
of  the  Uiiited  States  adecjuate  to  the  exigencies,  the  j^reservation,  and  the 
prosperity  of  the  rnion. 

Dickinson's  motion  was  rejected  .hiiie  !:•.  1 1  was  then 
voted  "to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  first  proposition 
otl'ered  l)y  Mr.  Paterson."''  Obviously,  then,  Paterson's  first 
resolution  and  this  declai'ation  proposed  by  Dickinson  were  two 
different  things.  Yet  in  both  A  and  B  what  is  set  down  as 
the  first  of  the  Paterson  resolutions  is  almost  exactly  identical 
with  this  vote  i)roposed  by  Dickinson— so  nearly  the  same  in 

'«I  am  iiifoniK'd  I.y  ^fr.  AHuii,  chief  of  the  bureau  of  rollH  and  library,  tlmt  Broarley's 
inaiiu.s(Ti|il  runs  coutiiiuoiisly  and  williout  iiUeriiolation  al  (his  point. 
''Yates,  p.  140;  KUiot,  1,  12.'). 
••Doeumeiitary  History,  I,  221,  22.'). 


1 0  8  A  M  EK 1 1  A I^    III  8T(  )lilO  A  L    ASSOCl  AT  lON. 

phraseoloo-y  that  no  .sensible  man.  at  so  important  a  crisis  for 
the  smalltM-  States,  would  have  cared  to  sugg-ost  the  slight 
alterations.  There  is,  moreover,  a  signiiicant  passage  in 
Luther  Martin's  (JiMuiine  Infoi-mation/'  in  which  he  says: 

.Nay,  so  far  wcrr  tlu'  Iriciuls  of  tlie  s}>t('in  [iueauin<i:  the  Virginia  plan] 
from  pretending  that  tiiey  meant  it  or  considered  it  as  a  l%leral  .system, 
that  on  the  qnestion  being  proposed,  "  that  a  nnion  of  the  States,  merely 
Federal,  ought  to  be  the  sole  object  of  the  exercise  of  the  i)owers  vested  in 
the  convention."  it  was  negatived  hy  a  majority  of  the  members. 

No  motion  expressed  in  these  words  is  to  be  found  in  the 
journal  of  the  Conuuittee  of  the  Whole.  Careful  search  seems 
to  shoAv  that  Avhat  he  says  can  have  reference  to  nothing  else 
than  the  rejection,  on  June  ID,  of  Faterson's  first  resolution. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  resolution  which  stands  first  in  the  cur- 
rent texts  can  not  have  been  the  first.  The  words  which  Mar- 
tin  ([uotes  would  be  wholly  appropriate  to  an  introductory 
article.  None  but  the  first  of  Paterson's  propositions,  what- 
ever the}^  were,  was  ever  brought  to  a  distinct  vote  and  sepa- 
ratel}'  rejected.  It  is  prolia])le,  then,  that  here  in  these  words 
of  ]\Iartin  we  have  the  first  of  the  New  Jersey  resolutions, 
aUuded  to  but  not  quoted  in  the  journal. 

Hut  it  is  now  time  to  invoke  the  text  which  we  shall  call 
C.  It  is  to  be  found  in  tw'O  periodicals  contemporary  with 
the  da3^s  of  the  Con\  ention — the  Marjiand  Gazette  or  Balti- 
more Advertiser,^  of  February  15, 1788,  and  Carey's  American 
Museum.''  It  will  l)e  remembered  that  Luther  Martin,  one 
of  those  who  took  part  in  drawling  up  the  plan,  had  a  copy  of 
it  which  he  read,  or  at  an}"  rate  offered  to  read,  to  the  Mary- 
land assembl}^  when  giving  them  his  '"genuine  information." 
Now,  the  series  in  the  Maryland  Gazette  is  headed  with  the 
words:  "Resolves  proposed  to  the  Convention  ])y  the  Honor- 
able Mr.  Paterson,  and  mentioned  in  Mr.  Martin's  Informa- 
tion to  th,e  House  of  Assembly."  It  is  likely  that  the  printer 
got  his  copy  from  Martin.  The  text  in  the  American  Museum 
gives  no  indication  of  its  provenance. 

P>ut  whatever  the  origin  of  C,  its  peculiarities  are  interest- 
ing.    In  the  first  place,  it  consists  of  no  less  than  sixteen 

"Yates,  p.  42;  Elliot,  I,  302. 

''Not  to  be  confounded  with  the  M;iryliui<l  Ga/.ette  published  at  the  same  time  at 
Annapolis.  I  am  indebted  to  islr.  Porter  Ilollis  of  the  .Tohns  IIoi>kiiis  TTniversity  for 
kindly  copying  for  me  this  text. 

fill,  362,36.3. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  139 

article.s,  and  the  tir^t  of  those  is  that  identical  resolution  the 
existence  of  which  we  have  been  led  to  suspect  from  INlartm's 
reminiscence,  and  which  almost  certainly  was  the  one  voted 
down  in  committee  on  June  19.  It  is  expressed  in  exactly 
the  words  quoted  l)y  Martin."  Article  2  is  Dickinson's  sub- 
stitute, which  we  can  be  sure  was  not  a  ]>art  of  the  original. 
The  otlier  articles,  with  a  singde  exception,  correspond  to 
those  of  B,  but  with  a  diHerent  order  and  with  some  subdi- 
vision.'^ That  exception.  Article  14,  is  almost  as  interesting 
as  Article  1.  It  reads:  '"  Resolved^  That  it  is  necessary  to  de- 
tine  what  offenses  committed  in  any  State  shall  be  deemed  high 
treason  against  the  United  States.'"  Now.  not  oidy  is  this 
interesting  on  account  of  its  intrinsic  importance.  l)nt  it  oc- 
curs, crossed  out.  in  the  corresponding  position  in  the  series 
written  down  in  Judge  Paterson's  little  l)ook.  This  mav  make 
us  doubtful  whether  it  was  in  fact  laid  before  the  Convention, 
and  so  again  skeptical  as  to  G's  being  the  genuine  original 
text,  as  submitted  on  June  15.  In  the  passage  on  the  re- 
moval of  the  Executive,''  the  reading  of  C  is  simply,  "  remov- 
able on  impeachnuMit  and  conviction  for  malpractice,  corrupt 
coiiduct,  and  negl(»?t  of  duty." 

The  fourth  text,  which  we  may  call  D,  uihmI  not  long  detain 
us.  In  the  appendix  to  the  lirst  volume  of  the  Life  and  Cor- 
respondence of  Rufus  King,''  among  some  notes  which  he 
wrote  out  about  1818-1821,  there  appears  a  series  of  i^oxi^n 
articles,  bri(>Hy  summarized,  headed,  "Quere  if  Paterson's 
Project."  The  next  words  run:  '-The  powers  of  the  Conven- 
tion only  authorize  the  enlargement  of  the  provisions  of  the 
Confederation,  viz."  These  words  point  to  both  the  first 
article  of  C  and  its  s(>cond,  the  lirst  of  A  and  P.  The  seven 
articles  which  follow  correspond,  in  the  same  ordei',  to  Arti- 
cles 2-0,  8,  and  9  of  A.  The  text  is  obviously  too  nuich  abbre- 
viated, too  plainly  derivative,  to  have  nuicli  independent  au- 
thority. Its  reading  as  to  the  rem<)\  a!  of  the  Executive  is: 
"removable  by  Congress  on  application  of  a  majority  of  the 
state  executives,"  the  reading  of  A,  foi-  which  Madison  con- 
tended and  which  Wilson's  speech  supports. 


"Save  "this  Convention  "  where  he  says  "  the  Convention." 

f'Art.  2=lof  B;  Art.  3-2  of  B:  Arts. '1,5=3  of  B;  Arts. 0,7=4  of  B;  Art.s.S,<J=7  of  ]5,  Art. 
10=5  of  B;  Art.n=f)Of  B,  wliich,  it  will  be  rememhered.  is  not  in  A;  Art.  12=9  of  B,  of 
which  the  same  is  true;  Ait.l3=.Sof  H:  Arls.]5an(l  10  =!Oiin<l  II  uf  B,  re.spectively. 

'•  .Vt  the  end  of  article  0. 

''l>i..  000,  001. 


14()  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Rut  if  Avi>  arc  ()t)liii('(l  to  lesnc  in  soiiuMlouht  llu^  (luestioii 
of  tho  exact  text  of  the  Now  Jersey  resolutions,  it  may  be 
possible  foi'  us  to  <!ast  some  light  on  their  genesis  by  the  use 
of  certain  papers  preserved  by  eJudge  Paterson/'  Those  to 
which  allusioTi  is  niade  and  which  are  reallv  significant  are 
two  ill  numb(M'.  Each  is  written  in  Paterson's  handwritiny- 
on  a  single  sheet  of  foolscap.  One  of  these,  plainly  the 
earlier  one,  consists  of  live  articles,  and  ma}^  not  improl)ably, 
for  reasons  wliicii  will  appear,  he  attributed  to  John  Lansing, 
jr.,  of  New  York,  who,  we  may  infer  from  the  remarks  of 
Madison  and  Martin,  took  pai't  with  the  members  from  the 
small  States  in  th(>  pi'eparation  of  the  Jersey  plan.  Its  lirst 
r(\solution  is  that  declaration  for  a  union  merely  federal 
which,  as  we  ha\'e  seen,  stood  at  the  head  of  the  genuine 
Paterson  resolutions  and  was  rejected  by  the  Convention.  On 
that  very  account,  perhaps,  it  is  here  crossed  out.  Its  second 
article  is  that  wdiich  Dickinson,  on  June  18,  moved  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  preceding  and  which  stands  as  the  first  reso- 
lution in  A  and  B  and  the  second  in  C.  Its  third  article, 
"that  the  t'ederal  Government  of  the  United  States  ousrht  to 
consist  of  a  supreme  legislative,  executive*  and  judiciary,"  is 
practically  the  vote  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  May 
30,''  at  the  beginning  of  its  deliberations,  but  with  the 
important  substitution  of  ''Federal"  (that  shibl)oleth  of  the 
particularists)'"  for  "national."  The  fourth  article  is  to  the 
elf ect  "that  the  powers  of  legislation  ought  to  ])e  vested  in 
Congress."  This  no  doubt  means  vested  in  a  Congress  organ- 
ized like  the  present  Congress  of  the  Confederation,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  bicameral  body  proposed  l)y  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  This  resolution  does  not  appear  in  the  printed 
texts.  But  on  June  IG  one  of  the  group  who  prepared  the 
New  Jersey  plan,  Ellsworth,  proposed  "that  the  legislativ^e 
power  of  the  United  States  should  remain  in  Congress." 
"This,"  says  Madison,  "was  not  seconded,  though  it  seemed 
better  calculated  for  the  purpose  than  the  first  proposition  of 
Mr.  Patei-son,  in  place  of  which  Mr.  E.  wished  to  substitute 
it."''     Again,  on  June  20,  it  was  moved  by  Lansing  and  sec- 

"For  these  1  am  indebted  to  tlu'  kindness  of  Mr.  Noah  F.  Morrison,  of  Elizabeth. 
There  are  copies  iimong  the  Bancroft  MSS.,  at  the  Lenox  Library. 

''Documentary  History,  I,  200. 

'•  Vates,  pp.  42,  43. 

''Docnraentary  History,  III,  r.Mr.  Hunt,  III,  IT'.t.  The  motion  does  not  appear  in  the 
journals. 


THE    FEDEKAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  141 

onded  l)y  Shenntiii,  two  others  of  the  group,  to  postpone  the 
consideration  of  the  second  resolution  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  in  order  to  take  up  the  following"  *' Resolved, 
That  the  powers  of  legislation  be  vested  in  the  United  States 
in  Congress.""  Accordingly  this  provision,  though  it  seems 
to  have  dropped  out  from  the  plan  before  the  final  framing, 
was  one  to  which  several  of  the  framers  were  attached,  and 
had  a  natural  place  in  a  preliminary  sketch. 

The  fifth  and  last  article  of  this  incomplete  sketch  deals  with 
additions  to  the  powers  of  Congress,  over  and  above  those 
which  the  Articles  of  Confederation  had  conferred  upon  it. 
It  closely  resembles  the  article  on  this  subject  which  we  find 
in  the  printed  series,  and  reseni))les  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  be 
almost  certainly  its  prototype.  This  can  proba))ly  not  be  made 
clear  without  quoting  it.      It  reads: 

RcmlvaJ,  That  in  Addition  to  the  r<)\vers  vested  in  tlie  United  States 
in  Congress  by  the  present  existing  Articles  of  Confederation,  they  be 
authorised  to  pass  Acts  for  levying  a  Duty  or  Duties  on  .all  Goods  and 
Merchandize  of  foreign  Growth  or  Manufacture  imported  into  any  Part  of 
the  Unite<l  States  not  exceeding  per  Cent,  ad  Valorem  to  l)e  api)lied  to 
such  federal  Purposes  as  they  shall  deem  proper  and  expedient,  and  to 
make  Rules  and  Regulations  for  the  Collecrtion  thereof;  and  the  same  from 
Time  to  Time  to  alter  and  amend  in  sucli  Manner  as  they  shall  think 
proper,  Prorldi'il,  That  all  Punishments,  l-'ines,  Forfeitures  and  Penalties 
to  be  incurred  for  contravening  such  Rules  and  Regulations  shall  be 
adjudged  and  decided  upon  by  the  Judiciaries  of  the  State  in  which  any 
Offence  contrary  to  the  true  Intent  and  [Meaning  of  such  l^iles  and  Regu- 
lations shall  be  connnitted  or  perpetrated;  subject  nevertheless  to  an 
Appeal  for  the  Correction  of  any  Errors  in  rendering  .Judgment,  to  the 
Judiciary  of  the  United  States. 

That  the  United  States  in  Congress  be  also  authorized  to  pass  Acts  for 
the  Regulation  of  Trade  as  well  with  foreign  Nations  as  with  each  other, 
and  for  laying  such  Prohibitions  and  such  Imposts  and  Duties  upon 
Imports  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  Purpose;  Prorldid,  That  the  Legis- 
latures of  the  several  States  shall  not  be  restrained  from  laying  iMubai-goes 
in  Times  of  Scarcity;  and  provided  further  that  such  Imposts  and  Duties 
so  far  forth  as  tlie  same  shall  exceed  per  Centum  ad  Valorem  on  the 

Imports  shall  accrue  to  the  Use  of  the  States  in  which  the  same  may  l»e 
collected. 

If  all  this  be  comi)ared  with  Article  2  of  A  or  B,  it  will  bt' 
plaiidy  .seen  that  it  is  the  original  of  the  latter,  or  represents 
an  early  stage  in  its  elaboration.  In  the  margin  stand  the 
words  *' Imposts,  Excise,  Stamps,  rost-Oflice,  Poll  Tax,"  evi- 

aDocumfiiliiry  nistory,  I,  67,  f>8. 


142  AMEIUtVAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

donth  luiiiutcd  iis  .siiuu'cstioiis  of  rurtlun-  sources  of  federal 
n>vemie  to  In-  considored;  and  the  liiial  draft,  though,  as  might 
1)0  expected,  it  avoids  the  excise  and  the  poll  tax,  inserts  after 
tlu^  mention  oF  I'lnenue  by  duties  on  imports  thc^  words  "by 
stamps  on  i)aper,  vellum  oi'  parchment,  and  b}'  a  postage  on 
all  letters  or  packages  passing  tiirough  the  general  post-oltice." 
Attention  may  Ik'  called. to  the  close  relation  between  these 
proposals  and  the  revenue  proposals  of  1781  and  1783  and  the 
project  of  1781  for  the  reguhition  of  commerce.  In  short,  we 
have  in  this  document  a  Vorschrlft  for  the  New  Jersey  plan, 
drawn  up  by  ;i  man  or  men  who  were  willing  to  go  ])ut  little 
beyond  those  rejected  and  insufficient  schemes. 

Eitiier  no  more  was  written  of  this  paper  or  Paterson  copied 
no  more.  The  other  paper  extends  farther  and  seems  to  mark 
a  later  stage  in  the  process.  Its  hrst  article  is  that  which  we 
ultimately  find  as  the  first  of  A  and  B.  Its  second  insists 
that  the  amendments  resolved  on  by  the  Convention  should 
be  submitted  to  Congress  and  to  each  State,  after  the  fashion 
prescribed  in  Article  13  of  the  Confederation.  Articles  3  and 
1  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  shorter  paper.  The  numbers 
5,  6,  and  7  are  left  with  blanks  in  the  text.  This  is  done  to 
save  copying;  for  in  the  margin,  against  5,  w^  read,  "See 
Mr.  Lansing;''  against  0,  "See  Gov.  Randolph's  7th  Prop'nf' 
against  7,  "Same,  9th.''  Now,  since  in  the  finished  document, 
at  least  according  to  texts  A  and  B,  we  find  at  this  point  a 
resolution  relating  to  the  additional  powers  to  1)e  conferred 
on  Congress,  then  (after  that  on  requisitions)  one  on  the  execu- 
tive which  closely  resembles  Randolph's  seventh  resolution, 
then  one  on  the  judiciary,  which  closely  follows  his  ninth,  it 
is  not  illegitimate  to  infer  that  the  fifth  article  of  the  shorter 
paper,  whose  text  we  have  quoted  and  on  which  the  article  on 
the  powers  of  Congress  in  the  final  document  was  plainl}^ 
modeled,  is  here  alluded  to  as  the  Avork  of  John  Lansing,  of 
New  York.  The  eighth  and  ninth  articles,  assertions  of  the 
equalit}'  of  the  States  in  sovereignty  and  independence  and  of 
their  consequent  right  to  equal  representation  in  the  supreme 
legislature,  need  not  detain  us.  The  part  which  such  asser- 
tions played  in  the  transactions  of  the  Convention  is  well 
known.  The  two  papers  under  discussion  have  their  main 
interest  as  preparatory  sketches  for  the  conq)leted  New  Jersey 
plan,  the  general  nature  of  which  is  after  all  ascertainable,  and 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  143 

us  helping  to  explain  its  development.  It  was  doulitless  a 
joint  product. "  It  may  be  remembered,  by  the  way,  that 
Ellsworth.  Patei'son.  and  Luther  Martin  were  fellow-students 
at  Princeton  and  companions  in  founding  the  C'liosophic 
Societ3\ 

V]].  THE  Tf:XT  OF  HAMILTON'S  I'LAN. 

In  any  discussion  of  Hamilton's  foi-mai  suogestions  for  the 
proposed  Constitution  of  the  Ignited  States,  it  is  iini)ortant  to 
keep  in  mind  the  distinction  between  the  brief  outline  which 
he  read  in  connection  with  his  important  speech  of  rlune  18 
and  the  longer  and  more  elaborate  plan  which,  near  the  end  of 
the  sessions  of  the  Convention,  ''was  placed  in  Mr.  ^ladison's 
hands  for  preservation  b}-  Colonel  Hamilton,  who  regarded  it 
as  a  permanent  evidence  of  his  opinion  on  tlu^  subject."'' 

Of  this  longer  document  ^ladison  returned  th(>  original,  from 
which  it  was  printed  in  Hamilton's  Works,'  and  kept  a  copy, 
fromAvhich  it  was  printed  ])y  Gilpin"'  and  by  P^lliot,' andmorc 
recently  in  the  Documentary  History  '  and  in  Hunt's  Writings 
of  James  Madison.^/  The  text  of  all  these  is  the  sam(\  and  not 
at  the  present  day  a  matter  of  controversy.  One  detail,  how- 
ever, was  a  hundred  years  ago  a  matter  of  vivid  dispute,  and 
may  deserve  a  passing  notice.  It  having  been  alleged  "in  a 
Jacobin  meeting  at  Salem"''  that  Hamilton  had  proposed  that 
the  president  and  senate  should  l>e  chosen  for  life,  Timothy 
Pickering  Avrote  to  him  reijuesting  information  on  the  point. 
Hamilton  replied  in  a  letter  of  SeptemT)er  16, 1808.  admitting 
that  he  had  i)roposed  a  tenure  during  good  l)eha\i()r  for  presi- 
dent, senate,  and  judges,  but  declaring  that  his  linal  oi)iiiion 
in  the  Convention  had  been  reversed,  so  far  as  the  (\\ecutive 
was  concerned. 


a  See,  also,  p.  150,  injrn ;  luid,  for  tlu-  use  mntV-  of  llu'  New  .Icrscy  rcsohitioiis  in  Ihu 
Committee  of  Detail,  p.  129,  supra. 

'> Gilpin,  III,  xvi.  Mr.  Loflge  seems  really  to  suppose  the  loiter  (loiuiiieiil  lo  liave 
been  laid  before  tb.e  Convention  at  the  same  lime  with  the  shorter,  wlien  he  says  ;  Works 
of  Hamilton,  I,  351  n.):  "  Many  of  the  clauses  of  the  exisliiit;  Couslitulion  would  seem  to 
have  been  taken  exactly  from  Hamilton's  draft." 

<•  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition,  II,  395-409.    The  original  is  now  iu  the  Aslor  Library. 

f'lll,  xvi-xxviii. 

c  V.  584-590. 

/Ill,  771-7MS. 

f/  III,  197-209.  Madison  had  at  some  time  furuislied  Jeirerson  with  a  eopy  of  this  finper. 
Seehisk>tterof.Tulyl7,  ISIO  (Letters,  II,  481),  written  under  the  appr.-hensi..n  (bat  be 

had  lost  his  own  copy. 
h Pickering  to  Hamilton,  April  5, 1S03,  r,  Ma.ss.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  \'II  1.  179. 


144  AMKUIOAN"    IirSTOKirAL    ASSOCIATION. 

In  tlic  I'laii  tif  a  constitntioii,  wliicli  I  drew  up  while  the  Convention 
was  pittiii.i::,  ami  wliich  1  (•oiimmnicatcil  in  Mr.  Madison  about  the  close  of 
it,  perliaps  a  <lay  m-  two  after,  tlie  oHice  of  president  has  no  greater  dura- 
tion than  for  three  years." 

Miidison  ill  ono  of  his  letters,  in  which  he  is  discussino-  the 
disputed  minibei-s  of  the  •' FiMleiiilist,''  iuiiniadverts  upon  this 
as  a  sig'nal  instance  of  the  fallibility  of  llainilton's  nieinorv;'' 
foi'  the  tenur(»  is  durino-  uood  behavior  both  in  the  Madison 
copy  and  in  that  found  aniono"  lIaniilton\s  papers/' 

But  it  is  tlie  l)i-i(>tVr  sketch  read  on  June  18  which  more 
conciMMis  us.  It  ol)viously  has  more  in  common  with  th(^  pro- 
jects laid  before  the  Convention  in  its  early  days  by  Randolph, 
Pinckney.  and  Paterson  than  has  the  finished  docmiient  which 
Hamilton  dicw  up  when  all  discussion  was  ended.  And  ji^t 
it  stands  on  a  somewhat  di  tie  rent  basis  from  these.  It  was 
never  formally  proposed  to  the  Convention,  and  of  course 
never  referred  to  a  connnittee;  in  a  sense,  it  was  but  a  por- 
tion of  a  speech.  Its  author,  at  the  time  when  he  read  it, 
stated,  according  to  Madison's  report,  that — 

he  did  not  mean  to  offer  the  i)aper  he  had  sketched  as  a  proposition  to  the 
coniniittee.  It  was  meant  only  to  give  a  more  correct  view  of  his  ideas,  and 
to  suggest  the  amendments  which  he  should  probably  propose  to  the  i)lan 
of  Mr.  R.  in  the  projjer  stages  of  its  future  discussion.'^ 

To  the  same  purport  Madison  sajs,  in  a  letter  to  John 
Quincy  Adams: 

Colonel  Hamilton  did  not  projxise  in  the  Convention  any  plan  of  Con- 
stitution. He  had  sketched  an  outline  which  he  read  as  part  of  a  speech, 
observing  that  he  did  not  mean  it,  etc.'' 

But  though  laid  l^efore  the  Convention  so  informall}^,  Ham- 
ilton's paper  was  regarded  by  his  colleagues  with  so  much 
interest  that  we  have  eight  diflerent  texts  of  it  from  copies 
kept  by  at   least  six  ditierent  members  of  the  Convention. 

"  Xiles'sRcKister,  III,14S:  Pickcring'.sReview,  pp.  172-173  (120-121  of  .seconded.);  Pitkin, 
If,  259-260;  Works,  ed.  Hamilton,  VI,  550;  J.  C.  Hamilton,  Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton, 
II,  548;  id.,  History  of  the  Ropnblic,  III,  344, 345.  At  p.  343  of  the  latter  is  a  similar  state- 
ment made  by  Hamilton  in  print  during- his  lifetime. 

''To  James  K.  Paulding,  Aiiril,  1S31.    Letters,  IV.  177.    So  also  in  Gilpin,  III,  xvi. 

<•  J.  C.  Hamilton's  note,  Repnhlie,  III,  345,  is  singularly  inept;  he  says,  regardless  of 
what  he  had  printed  in  Hamilton's  Works,  II,  401,  sec.  9,  "the  term  of  three  years  is  in 
the  second  plan." 

''Documentary  History,  III,  149;  Gilpin,  II,  S,S9,  890;  Hunt,  III,  194. 

<- Letter  to. T.  l^.  Adams,  Noveml)er  2,  1818.  ,1.  C.  Ilamilton'.s  History  of  the  Republic, 
IH,  a]>p.  iii;  Hunt,  III,  209.  .1.  C.  Hamiltcin  labors  (ibid.,  ?,0\  n.)  to  show  that  Madison 
contradicted  himself  on  this  point,  but  on  the  whole  without  success. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  145 

Presumably  all  these  were  written  in  the  uien)l)er.s'  own  hand- 
writing, according"  to  the  practice  described  on  a  i)revious 
page,  at  the  ])cginning  of  our  study  of  the  Virginia  resolu- 
tions. In  most  cases  we  know  that  this  was  the  fact.  These 
texts  manifest  considerable  differences  in  certain  articles. 

First  of  all  (A)  we  have  Hamilton's  own  text,  in  eleven 
articles,  as  printed  in  his  works."  The  manuscript  from 
which  it  was  printed  was  found  among  his  papers.  Next  (B) 
we  have  Madison's.  Madison  says  that  his  report  of  the 
speech,  in  comiection  with  which  this  plan  was  read,  was  re- 
vised by  Hamilton,  but  his  phrase  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  this  was  true  of  his  text  of  the  plan.'''  The  latter  is 
printed  in  Giljjin,'  in  Elliot,''  in  the  third  volume  of  the  Docu- 
mentary History,'  and  in  Hunt's  Madison.'  Thirdly,  there  is 
Brearley's  copy  (C),  which  (xeneral  Bloomtield  handed  over 
to  Secretary  Adams,  with  the  other  papers  mentioned  on  pre- 
vious pages  as  derived  from  him,  in  May,  iSlS.'/  This  is 
printed  in  the  Journal  of  ISl'.l,^'  in  Elliot,'  and  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  Documentary  History.'  Fourthly,  there  is 
Paterson's  copy  (D),  in  his  handwriting,  which  is  contained  in 
the  small  manuscript  l)ook  already  mentioned  in  these  pages, 
and  temporarily  lent  to  the  present  writer.  Fifthly,  Read's 
Life  of  George  Read  presents  a  text  in  nhic  articles  (E), 
"from  a  copy  in  Mr.  Read's  handwriting."^  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  George  Read,  perhaps  alone  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  expressed  full  approval  of  Hamilton's 
suggestions.'  The  eleven  articles  are  reduced  to  nine  by  the 
omission  of  the  second  and  the  consolidation  of  the  fourth  and 
tifth  into  one.  Yates's  minutes  contain  a  sunnnaiy  of  the 
plan,  which,  though  very  brief,  is  of  interest  and  has  an  inde- 

«Ed.  Hiunillon,  II,  393-395;  ed.  LodKi',  I,  331-333. 

''Hutit,  n,  ni,  III,  1S2;    Gilpin.  H,  .S'J'-*;    Trist's  nu'iiinniiidiini   in    liuriilaH's  JcllVrsoii, 
III,  r,'Jl. 
f II,  890-sy2. 
'( V,  205. 
'•111,119-1.51. 
/Ill,  191-197. 

(/  Letter  of  Adams,  in  IlainlllonV  Kc|iul)lii-,  III.  a|.|..  p.  ii:  .Imnnal,  \>.  VM. 
I'  I'p.  130-132. 

'■  I.  179-lSO.  , 

J  I.  321-:i2tl. 

/.I'p.  1.'):!,  1.51. 

(  Documentary  History,  111,  212,  213,  217,  2HI. 

II.  Doc.  461,  pt  1 10 


14()  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

pcMulent  Olio-ill."  Of  the  seventh  and  eighth  texts,  we  may 
postpone  our  consideration  for  a  few  pages. 

Ainoiip-  these  six  texts  there  are  consideral>le  variations, 
thoug-h  l^iterson's  (D)  is  precisely  like  Brearley's  (C).  If 
there  were  no  reasons  to  the  contrary  in  any  case  the  pre- 
sumption would  he  in  favor  of  assigning  a  superioi'  au- 
thority to  the  copy  found  in  Hamilton's  own  handwriting. 
Hut  documents  are  often  retouched,  and  we  have  seen  how 
insecure  such  reasoning  WH)uld  be  in  the  case  of  Pinckney  or 
even  of  Paterson.  Let  us,  then,  study  the  variations.  They 
occur  in  the  text  of  the  fourth,  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  of 
Hamilton's  eleven  proposals. 

In  the  fourth  article,  which  relates  to  the  executive,  the 
variations  nvc  in  that  part  which  prescribes  the  (mdirect) 
mode  of  his  election.  Text  A  provides  for  "his  election  to 
ho  made  l)y  electors  chosen  b}"  electors  chosen  by  the  people 
in  the  election  districts  aforesaid,"  meaning  the  single-member 
districts  arranged  for  the  choice  of  senators.  That  is  to  say, 
it  provides  not  that  his  election  shall  be  secondary,  l)utthatit 
shall  be,  if  the  phrase  is  permissible,  a  tertiary  election.  An 
alternative  is  provided,  which  appears  in  no  other  of  the 
texts,  namely,  "or  by  electors  chosen  for  that  purpose  by 
the  respective  legislatures" — an  election  still  tertiary.  The 
Bloomtield  and  Paterson  texts  (C,  D),  though  the}^  do  not  give 
the  second  meml)er  of  this  alternative,  agree  exactly  with  the 
phraseology  of  the  first.  In  Madison's  text  the  process  be- 
comes simply  that  of  secondary  election — "  the  election  to  be 
made  }>y  electors  chosen  by  the  people  in  the  election  districts 
aforesaid."  Read's  text  (E)  agrees  with  this.  That  of  Yates 
seems  to  support  it.  He  writes,  "  Let  electors  be  appointed 
in  each  of  the  States  to  elect  the  Executive;"'^  but  this  brief 
phrase  does  not  necessarily  rule  out  the  wording  of  A  nor  ab- 
solute! v  sustain  that  of  B.  Arguments  from  one  or  another 
of  these  texts  derived  from  expressions  used  in  the  subse- 
quent debates  seem  to  be  lacking.  The  longer  and  more  in- 
tricate form  in  which  A  provides  for  the  presidential  election 
is   sustained    by    the    more    elaborate   plan  which  Hamilton 

"Secret  Debates,  ed.  1821,  pp.  136,  137;  Elliot,  I,  423,  with  a  difference,  to  be  noted 
below. 

''Elliol,  1,  423,  chiingcs  the  last  word  U>  "legislature,"  which  the  context  sliow.s  to  be 
erroneous.  It  .should  be  remembered  that  the  i)lan  printed  in  the  appendix  to  Yates  is 
sinifily  copied  frf)in  that  in  the  .Tofirnal  of  LSI*),  and  has  no  independent  authority. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  147 

showed  to  Madison  in  September,  for  thi.s  provided  for  a  ter- 
tiary" riither  than  a  secondary  election,"  and  it  is  eas}^  in  copy- 
ing to  omit  one  of  two  similar  phrases  when  the  repetition  is 
not  perfectly  well  known  to  be  intentional.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  not  easy  to  imagine  that  the  alternative  method 
which  is  sug-g-ested  in  A  was  realh"  in  the  document  read  on 
June  18,  yet  escaped  all  notice  on  the  part  of  all  live,  or  at 
an}^  rate  four,  of  those  whose  versions  have  come  down  to  us. 

In  the  seventh  article,  relating  to  the  judiciary,  the  numl)er 
of  judges  in  the  Supreme  Court  is  left  blank  in  B,  C,  D,  and 
E,  whereas  in  A  the  blank  is  tilled  with  th(>  word  twelve. 
Much  the  most  probable  conclusion  is  that  the  document  origi- 
nally read  had  a  blank  at  this  point,  which  Hamilton  subse- 
quently filled  in  witli  the  munber.  In  his  longer  phui  he 
provides  for  a  court  of  from  six  to  twelve  judges. 

The  eighth  article  of  A  r(^ads: 

The  Legislature  of  the  I'nited  Staten  to  have  power  to  institute  courts  in 
each  State  for  the  (leterinination  of  all  causes  of  caiitnre  and  of  all  matters 
relating  to  their  revenue,  or  in  wliicli  the  cilizens  of  foreign  nations  arc 
concerned. 

In  B,  in  C,  in  D,  and  in  K  (art.  <>).  we  tind  a  less  specific 
definition  of  their  jurisdiction:  "for  the  determination  of  all 
matters  of  general  concern."  It  would  be  natural,  accoi-ding 
to  the  usual  rules  respecting  copying,  to  suppose  that  tlic  more 
specific  phrase  was  the  original,  the  more  general  derivati\e; 
but  this  presumption  is  nuich  w^eakened  when  we  tind  four 
independent  texts  agreeing  exactly  in  their  phrasing  of  this 
provision. 

Finally,  in  the  ninth  article,  the  various  texts  differ  markedh^ 
in  respect  to  the  composition  of  the  court  for  trying  impeach- 
ments. Text  A  provides  that  they  shall  be  tried  by  a  court 
consisting  "of  the  judges  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  chief 
or  senior  judge  of  the  superior  coiu't  of  law  of  each  State." 
The  others  make  no  mention  of  the  judges  of  the  Federal 
Supreme  Court.  Once  they  wer(>  introduced,  it  is  easy  to  see 
why  the  ])lank  in  Article  T  slioidd  l)e  filled  with  the  word 
twelve,  lest  in  impeachments  of  Federal  oilicers  they  !»<'  (juite 
outnuml)ered  l»y  the  thirteen  chief  justices  of  the  States,  or  so 
many  of  them  as  could  attend.  P.utii,  C,  D,  and  K,  while 
thev  confine  th(>  trit)un:il    to   the  State    judges,   have    minor 


•  I  I)(iciiiiii'nliiry  llislory.  Ill,  77r)-77K. 


148  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATIOK. 

variiitions  in  their  doHnition  of  thciii,  !>,  in  the  Documentary 
History,  reads,  "to  consist  of  the  chief  oi-  judoe  of  the  supe- 
rior court  of  law  of  each  State;""  in  (lilpin  and  in  Hunt,  "of 
the  chief  or  judo-e;"  K,  ''chief  or      -       judges;"  C  and 

D,  like  A,  "'chief  or  senior  judi>(\'"  It  is  not  difficult  to  im- 
ao-ine  that,  if  the  writer  did  not  feel  perfectly  acquainted  with 
the  judicial  systems  of  all  the  States,  and  therefore  could  not 
in  adyance  of  discussion  decide  what  phrase  should  be  used  to 
coyer  the  case  of  States  which  did  not  precisely  haye  a  chief 
judge,  he  mio-ht  at  tirst  write  "  chief  or  judge,"  and 

afterward  till  in  the  blank  with  the  word  "  senior."  In  Ham- 
ilton's longer  plan,  the  court  for  the  trial  of  impeachments 
in  the  case  of  the  higher  officials  is  composed  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  (which,  it  will  be  remembered,  was 
to  consist  of  from  six  to  twelye  judges),  plus  the  chief  or  senior 
judge  of  each  State,  an}^  twelye  to  constitute  a  court. 

The  seyenth  and  eighth  texts  haye  been  postponed.  It  is 
no  wise  certain  that  they  haye  an  independent  origin.  In  the 
tirst  yolume  of  "Porcupine's  Works,"  published  by  William 
Cobbett  in  May,  ISOl,  he  tells  us  that  "the  plan  of  a  Consti- 
tution, which  ]\Ir.  Hamilton  *  *  *  proposed  to  the  Con- 
yention,  has  since  been  published  by  his  enemies,  with  a  view 
of  destroying  his  popularity  and  influence."  "  He  then  I'eprints 
a  text  of  it,  which  difi'ers  only  in  two  small  particulars  from 
^Madison's  (B) — the  blank  in  the  seventh  article  is  simpl}^ 
closed  u}),  which  is  doubtless  a  mere  typographical  error;  and 
in  the  description  of  the  impeachment  court  the  reading  is 
"Chief  justice,  or  judge  of  the  superior  court  of  law,"  etc.  1 
have  not  been  able  to  discover  Cobbett's  source.  It  would  have 
some  interest,  as  the  earliest  printed  text  of  Hamilton's  plan, 
or  of  any  of  the  plans  submitted  to  the  Conv^ention,  except 
Paterson's.  Cobbett's,  however,  was  printed  during  Hamil- 
ton's lifetime;  and  so  was  our  eighth  text,  which  is  found  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled  "Propositions  of  Colonel  Hamilton  of  New 
York,  in  the  Convention  for  esta])lishing  a  Constitutional 
Government  for  the  United  States,"  printed  at  Pittslield, 
Mass.,  by  Phinehas  Allen,  in  1S02.'''  This  differs  in  no  respect 
from  Porcupine's,  save  that  in  the  phrase  last  cited  the  read- 

«  p.  89. 

''There  is  a  copy  in  the  library  of  tlie  New  York  Historieal  Society.  I  am  greatly 
indebted  to  Mr.  Robert  II.  Kelby,  librarian  of  that  society,  for  kindly  furni.shing  mo  a 
transcript. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  140 

ing  is  -'Chief  jiulge  or  judj^re."  It  is  impossible  at  present  to 
say  whether  either  of  these,  agreeing-  so  closely  with  ^Vladi- 
son's  text,  has  any  other  source  than  his  manusci-ipt. 

Whatever  the  prol)abilities  in  any  of  these  individual  cases 
of  variation,  it  is  perhaps  sufficiently  shown  that  in  respect  to 
Hamilton's  suggested  plan  we  have  hardly  more  warrant  than 
in  the*  case  of  the  Virginia  or  New  Jersey  resolutions  or 
Pinckney's  plan  for  declaring  with  confidence  that  any  one  of 
the  variant  texts  represents  exactly  the  original  document 
which  was  brought  before  the  Convention. 

In  the  late  Paul  Ford's  Bibliography  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States"  mention  is  l)rietiy  made,  against  llaniil 
ton's  name,  of  a  plan  of  government  printed  in  the  Massachu- 
setts Centinel  for  .lune  23,  17ST.  The  attribution  is  erron- 
eous.* The  piece  in  question  bears  no  signature^  or  other 
indication  of  authorship.  It  is  entitled  simply  "'Scetch  of  a 
Federal  Government.'"  It  is  formed  upon  i)rinciples  ditfering 
widely  in  several  respects  from  those  which  Hamilton  is 
known  at  that  tmie  to  have  entertained,''  It  provides  for  a 
legislative  assemblv  consisting  of  live  members  from  each 
State,  chosen  annually,  and  having  the  power  to  levy  excise 
duties  as  well  as  duties  on  imports  and  exports;  if  the  amount 
thus  raised  were  insufficient,  resort  should  ])e  had  to  retpii- 
sitions.  There  was  to  l)e  an  executive  council  of  one  member 
from  each  State,  chosen  triennially,  which  should  have  a  veto, 
superable  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  upon  the  acts  of  this  assembly. 
Appointments  were  to  })e  made  upon  a  triple  nomination  on 
the  part  of  the  executive  council  by  a  connnittee  of  one  ukmu- 
ber  of  the  assembly  from  each  Stat(\  A  council  of  revision, 
consisting  of  the  Secretarv  of  Foi'cign  Atiairs.  the  Secretarv  of 
War,  the  conunissioners  of  the  Trciisurv.  and  lirst  judge  of 
the  admiralty,  with  appeal  to  a  two-thirds  vote*  of  the  assem- 
bly, was  to  exercise  in  the  national  intei-est  a  control  over  the 
legislation  of  tlie  States.  The  States  were  to  have  no  ])ower 
to  emit  money  of  any  kind. 

All  this  is  interesting,  but  not  highly  important;  not  as 
important,  certainly,  as  (to  cite  a  document  of  somewhat  the 

a  V.  48. 

''I  wrote  to  Mr.  Ford  iiboiit  tliis  sonu?  yciirs  h^'o.     He  was  imnlile  to  say  witli  cortiiinty 
from  what  source  he  had  derived  his  attritjiition  of  tlie  plan  to  Ifainilton. 
(•For  a  copy  of  the  sketch  I  am  indebted  to  my  father,  Jolin  .Jameson,  esq.,  of  Boston. 


150  AMERICAN    HI8T()K1CAL    ASSOCIATION. 

siiino  class)  tlio  Ixxly  of  sugo-estions  found  unionii;'  the  papers 
of  lloi>"er  Sherman,  and  ijriiitcHl  l)v  Jeremiah  Evarts  in  his 
sketch  of  Sherman  in  Sanderson's  Lives  of  the  Signers."  It 
is,  by  the  way,  not  at  all  impossible  that  this  last  document, 
to  which  Mr.  Bancroft  attaches  so  high  an  importance/'  may 
have  been  a  portion  of  the  Connecticut  delegates'  contribution 
to  those  consultations  of  the  members  of  the  small  States,  out 
of  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  New  Jersey  resolutions 
originated.  There  is  nothing  in  its  provisions  inconsistent 
with  this  theory;  and  the  suggestion  is  fortified  by  the  pres- 
ence of  blanks  in  the  declaration,  "That  the  eighth  article  of 
the  confederation   ought  to    be    amended    agreeably  to  the 

recommendation  of  Congress  of  the day  of ."     For 

a  document  prepared  at  leisure  by  Sherman  it  w^ould  have 
been  easy  to  hunt  down  the  date,  April  18,  1783,  and  insert  it. 
For  a  paper  prepared  upon  a  sudden  exigenc}^  and  when  he 
was  remote  from  his  own  books,  it  might  have  been  necessary 
to  leave  the  date  blank.  The  original  of  the  paper  seems  to 
])e  no  longfer  extant. 


rt 


VIII.  THE  WILSON  DRAFTS  FOR  TilF  COMMITTEP]  OF  DETAIL. 

The  original  manuscripts  of  the  two  papers  which  follow 
are  found  among  the  papers  of  James  Wilson  possessed  })y 
the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  They  are  wholly  in 
his  handwriting.  For  some  consideration  of  their  character, 
and  of  their  relations  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  D(>tail, 
see  pages  126-18(»,  supra.  For  copies  of  them  the  writer 
is  indebted  to  Mr.  John  W.  Jordan,  librarian  of  the  societ}'. 
The  first,  which  in  the  original  has  received  its  present  shape 
through  many  interlineations  and  other  alterations,  is  here 
printed  for  the  first  time,  and  at  full  length,  so  far  as  pre- 
served. The  portion  now  extant  consists  of  two  sheets,  evi- 
denth'  the  first  and  third  of  three.  The  second,  which  must 
have  contained  statements  as  to  the  powers  of  Congress,  the 
organization  and  powers  of  the  executive  and  judiciary,  is 
missing.  In  the  text  which  follows,  under  A,  the  origin  of 
each  clause  is  indicated  by  references,  in  square  brackets,  to 
the  clause  from  which  it  was  derived,  directly  or  with  modi- 

a  II,  42-44.  h  Formation  of  the  Constitution,  II,  37. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    ITST.  151 

ticutions.  These  references  point,  when  it  is  possibh%  to  the 
corresponding-  passages  in  the  twenty-three  resohitions  of  the 
con^•ention  referred  to  the  connnittee,  to  the  Paterson  pUm  (text 
in  eleven  articles),  and  to  the  Pinckney  plan  as  presented  on 
pag-es  130, 131,  supra — the  three  documents  directly  referred 
to  the  connnittee.  In  the  case  of  provisions  not  found  in  anv 
of  the»e  three,  reference  is  made  ())y  the  word  ''Randolph" 
and  the  number  of  plate  and  clause  in  Mr.  Meio's's  facsimile 
text)  to  the  draft  in  Randolph's  handwritino-  which  show^s  the 
earlier  processes  of  the  committee's  work:  or  to  other  sources 
when  this  gives  no  aid. 

Of  the  second  of  Wilson's  drafts  (B),  it  has  l)een  thought 
sufficient  to  print  a  statement  of  its  divergences  (which  are 
few)  from  the  text  of  the  final  report. 

A. 

We  the  People  of  the  States  of  New  HanipHhire,  l\^asslchu.'•et^^,  Khode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut,  New-York,  New-Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North-Caroiina,  8onth-Car- 
olina:  and  Georgia  do  ordain  declare  and  esta))lish  the  following  Constitu- 
tion for  tiie  Govei'nnient  of  ourselves  and  of  our  Posterity.      [Original.] 

1. 

The  Stile  oi  tliis  Government  «hall  he  tlu-  "  ('niled  Tcopk'  and  States  of 
America."     [Articles  of  Confederation,  I.] 

2. 

The  Government  shall  consist  of  .«ui)renie  legislative,  executive  and  judi- 
cial Powers.     [Resolutions,  I.] 

8. 

The  legislative  Power  shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  to  consist  of  two  sep- 
arate and  distinct  Podies  of  Men,  a  House  of  Representatives,  and  a  Sen- 
ate, each  of  which  shall  in  all  Cases  have  a  Negative  on  the  other.  [Res- 
olutions, II,  and  Pinckney.] 


The  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  chosen  every 
second  year  by  the  People  of  the  several  States  comprehendeil  within  this 
Union.  Tlie  Qualifications  of  the  Electors  shall  be  prcscrihed  hy  the  J.eg- 
islatrres  of  the  several  States;  l>ut  their  Provisions  concerning  them  may 
at  any  Time  l)e  altered  and  superseded  by  the  Legislature  of  the  United 
States.     [Resolutions,  III;  Randolph,  III,  11.] 

F.very  Member  of  thi^  Ilou.se  of  Representatives  shall  be  oi  the  Age  of 
twenty  five  Years  at  least;  shall  have  been  a  Citizen  in  tlie  rnite<l  Slates 


152  A.MKKU'AN    HISTOKICAL    ASt^Ut'lATH)N, 

for  at  least  tliree  Years  l)el'(n-e  his  Kloctioii,  and  sliall  be,  at  the  Time  of  his 
Election,  a  Resident  of  the  Stat(\  in  which  lie  shall  be  eliosen.  [Kesohi- 
tions,  HI;  Kandolph,  11,  .">.] 

The  House  of  Representatives  sliall,  at  its  first  Formation  and  until  the 
Number  of  Citizens  and  Inhabitants  shall  l)e  taken  in  the  Manner  herein- 
after described,  consist  of  (15  Mend)ers,  of  whom  three  shall  be  chosen  in 
New-Hampsiiire,  eij^lit  in  Massachussets,  <kc.     [Resolutions,  YIIL] 

As  the  Projxirtions  of  Nund)eis  in  tlie  different  States  will  alter  from 
Time  to  Time;  as  some  of  the  States  may  be  iiereafter  divided;  as  others 
mav  be  enlarged  by  Addition  of  Territory,  or  two  or  more  States  may  be 
united;  and  as  new  States  will  be  erected  within  the  Limits  of  the  United 
States;  the  Legislature  shall,  in  each  of  those  Cases,  possess  Authority  to 
regulate  the  Number  of  Representatives  by  the  Number  of  Inhabitants, 
according  to  the  Provisions  herein  after  made.      [Resolutions,  YIII.] 

Direct  Taxation  shall  always  be  in  Proportion  to  Representation  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.     [Resolutions,  YIIL] 

The  Proportions  of  direct  Taxation  shall  be  regulated  by  the  whole 
Nund)er  of  white  and  other  Free  Citizens  and  Inhabitants  of  every  &c. 
which  Number  shall,  within  six  Y^ears  after  the  first  Meeting  of  the  Legis- 
lature, and  within  the  Term  of  every  ten  Years  afterwards,  be  taken  in 
suc'h  Manner  as  the  said  Legislature  shall  <li7-ect.     [Resolutions,  IX.] 

From  the  first  INIeeting  of  the  Legislature  until  the  Number  of  Citizens 
and  Inhabitants  shall  l)e  taken  as  aforesaid,  direct  Taxation  shall  be  in 
Proportion  to  the  Number  of  Representatives  chosen  in  each  State.  [Res- 
olutions, YIIL] 

All  Bills  for  raising  or  appropriating  Money  and  for  fixing  the  Salaries 
of  the  Officers  of  Government  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, and  shall  not  be  altered  or  amended  by  the  Senate.  No  Money 
shall  be  drawn  from  the  public  Treasury  but  in  Pursuance  of  Api)ropria- 
tions  that  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  [Resolu- 
tions, X.] 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  the  grand  Inquest  of  the  Nation; 
and  alt  Impeachments  shall  be  made  by  them.      [Pinekney.] 

Yacancies  in  the  Hou.se  of  Representatives  shall  be  supplied  by  Writs  of 
Election  from  the  Execaitive  Authority  of  the  State  in  the  Representation 
from  which  they  shall  happen.     [Randolph,  III,  17.] 

The  House  of  Representatives  shall  chuse  its  own  Speaker,  and  other 
Officers.     [Pinekney.] 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  clio.sen  by  the  Legislatm-es  of 
the  several  States;  Each  Legislature  shall  chuse  two  Members.  Each 
Member  shall  have  one  Vote.     [Resolutions,  lY,  XI,  XXII. ] 

The  Members  of  the  Senate  shall  be  chosen  for  six  Years;  provided  that 
immediately  after  the  first  Election,  they  shall  be  divided  by  Lot  into 
three  Clas.ses  as  nearly  as  may  be,  and  numbered  one,  two  and  three. 
The  Seats  of  the  Members  of  the  first  Class  sball  be  vacated  at  the  Expi- 
ration of  the  second  Year,  of  the  second  Class  at  the  Expiration  of  the 
fourth  Year,  of  the  third  Class  at  the  Expiration  of  the  sixth  Y^ear,  and 
so  on  continually,  that  a  third  Part  of  the  Members  of  the  Senate  may  be 
chosen  every  second  Year.     [Resolutions,  lY.] 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    17S7.  158 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  liave  Power  to  make  Treaties,  to 
send  Ambassadors,  and  to  appoint  the  .Tudccs  of  the  Supreme  national 
Court.     [Randolph,  VI,  3.] 

Every  Member  of  the  Senate  shall  be  of  the  Age  of  thirtj^  Years  at 
least,  shall  have  been  a  Citizen  in  the  United  States  for  at  least  four  Years 
before  his  Election,  and  shall  be,  at  the  Time  of  his  Election,  a  Resident 
of  the  State  for  which  he  shall  be  chosen.  [Resolutions,  JV^;  Randolph, 
III,  3.} 

Each  House  of  the  Legislature  shall  possess  the  Right  of  originating 
Bills,  except  in  the  Cases  before  mentioned.     [Resolutions,  V.] 

In  each  House  a  Majority  of  the  INIembers  shall  constitute  a  Quorum  to 
do  Business;  but  a  smaller  Number  may  adjourn  fioin  Day  to  Day. 
[Randolph,  III,  12;  IV,  5.] 

The  Senate  shall  chuse  its  own  President  and  other  Ofhcers.    [Pinckney.  ] 

Each  House  of  the  Legislature  shall  be  the  Judge  of  the  Elections, 
Returns,  and  Qualifications  of  its  own  Members.     [Original.] 

The  Times  and  Places  and  the  Planner  of  holding  the  Elections  of  the 
Members  of  each  House  shall  be  prescri])ed  l)y  the  Legislatures  of  each 
State;  but  their  Provisions  concerning  them  may,  at  any  Time,  be  altered 
and  superseded  by  the  Legislature  of  the  United  States.  [Randolph, 
II,  8;  III,  2.] 

The  Legislature  of  the  United  States  shall  have  Authoiity  to  establish 
such  qualifications  of  the  Members  of  each  House  with  regard  to  Property 
as  to  the  said  Legislature  shall  seem  proper  and  exi)edient.  [Resolu- 
tions, XXIII.  ] 

Each  House  sliall  have  Authority  to  determine  the  Rules  of  its  Proceed- 
ings [Pinckney],  and  to  punish  its  own  Members  for  disorderly  Behavii)iir. 
[Randolph,  III,  13;  IV,  7.] 

Each  House  may  expel  a  MenilKT,  Imt  not  a  second  Time  for  the  same 
Offence.     [Randolph,  III,  13;  IV,  7.] 

Neither  House  shall  adjourn  for  more  than  three  Days  without  the  Con- 
sent of  the  other;  nor  with  such  Consent,  to  any  other  Place  than  that  at 
which  the  two  Houses  are  sitting.  But  this  Regulation  shall  be  applied 
to  tlie  Senate  only  in  its  legislative  Capacity.     [Pinckney.] 

The  Members  of  each  House  shall,  in  all  Ca.ses,  except  Treason,  Felony* 
and  Breach  of  the  Peace,  be  privileged  from  Arrest  during  their  Attend- 
ance at  Congress,  and  in  going  to  and  returning  from  it.     [Handolpli,  1 11, 
14;  IV,  8.] 

The  Memlters  of  each  House  shall  lie  ineligilile  to  and  incapable  of 
holding  any  Office  under  the  Authority  of  the  Cnited  States  .luring  tlie 
Time  for  which  they  shall  be  respectively  elected:  And  the  Members  of 
tlie  Senate  shall  Ije  ineligible  to  and  incapable  of  holding  any  such  (illice 
for  one  Year  afterwards.     [Resolution.^,  Ill,  IV.] 

The  enacting  Stile  of  the  Laws  of  the  United  States  shall  be  "belt 
enacted  and  it  is  hereby  enacted  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  State.s  in  Congress  assembled.     [Original.] 

The  Members  of  each  IIou.se  shall  receive  a  Compensation  for  their  ser- 
vices, to  l)e  ascertained  an<l  paid  by  the  State  in  whicii  they  shall  be 
chosen.     [Resolutions,  HI,  IV.] 


154  AMEKICAN    lliS'i\)KiCAL    ASSOCIATION. 

Tlu'  ^ou^^e  of  Representatives  and  tlie  Senate,  when  it  shall  be  aetintjin 
a  leunslative  Capaeity,  shall  keej)  a  Journal  of  its  Proceedings,  and  sliall 
from  Time  to  Time  pn))lish  them:  And  the  Yeas  and  Nays  of  the  Mem- 
bers of  eat-ii  House  on  any  Question  shall  at  the  Desire  of  any  Member, 
be  entered  on  the  Journal.      [Ori<rinal.] 

Freedom  of  speech."  The 

[The  first  -sheet  ends  at  this  point;  the  second,  as  above 
explained,  is  niissinsf;  the  third  ])oo-ins  in  the  midst  of  a  pro- 
vision respectino-  tiie  uchuission  of  new  States.] 

n)itted  on  the  same  Terms  with  the  original  States:  [Resolutions,  XVII, 
or  Paterson,  8.]  But  the  Legislature  may  make  Conditions  with  the 
new  States  concerning  the  put)lic  Debt  which  shall  l)e  then  subsisting. 
[Randolpli,  YII,  5  b.] 

The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  each  State  a  Republican  Form  of 
Government;  and  shall  protect  each  State  against  foreign  Invasions,  and, 
on  the  Application  of  its  Legislature,  against  domestic  Violence.  [Reso- 
lutions. XVIII;  Randolph,  VIII,  2:4.] 

Tiiis  Constitution  ought  to  be  amended  whenever  such  Amendment 
shall  ))ecome  necessary  [Resolutions,  XIX];  and  on  the  Aiiplication  of 
the  Legislatures  of  tw^o  thirds  of  the  States  in  the  I'nion,  the  Legislature 
of  the  United  States  shall  call  a  Convention  for  that  Purpose.  [Ran- 
dolph, VIII,  5.] 

The  Members  of  tlie  Legislature,  and  the  executive  and  judicial  Officers 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States  shall  be  bound  by  Oath  to 
support  this  Constitution.     [Resolutions,  XX;  Paterson,  6.] 

RrsoJvrd,  That  the  Constitution  i)roposed  by  this  Convention  to  the 
People  of  the  United  States  for  their  Approbation  be  laid  before  the  United 
States  in  Congress  asseird:)led  for  their  Agreement  and  Recommendation, 
and  be  afterwards  submitted  to  a  Convention  chosen  in  each  State  mider 
the  Recommendation  of  its  Legislature,  in  order  to  receive  the  Ratifica- 
tion of  each  Convention.     [Resolutions,  XXL] 

Rrmlred,  That  the  Ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  States  shall 

l)e  sufficient  for  organizing  this  Constitution:   That  each  assenting  Con- 
'  vention  shall  notify  its  Assent  and  Ratification  to  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled:  Tliat  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  after 
receiving  the  Assent  and  Ratification  of  the  Conventions  of  States 

shall  appoint  and  publish  a  Day,  as  early  as  may  be,  and  appoint  a  Place 
for  commeiu-ing  Proceedings  under  this  Constitution:  That  after  such 
Publication  or  (in  Case  it  shall  not  be  made)  after  the  Expiration  of 
Days  from  the  Time  when  the  Ratification  of  the  Convention  of  the 
State  shall  have  been  notified  to  Congress  the  Legislatures  of  the  several 
States  shall  elect  Members  of  the  Senate,  and  direct  the  Election  of  Mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Representative's,  and  shall  provide  for  theii-  Support: 
That  the  ^Members  of  the  Legislature  shall  meet  at  the  Time  and  Place 
assigned  by  Congress  or  (if  Congress  shall  have  assigned  no  Time  and 
Place)  at  such  Time  and  Place  as  shall  have  been  agreed  on  by  the  Majorit}' 


'.A  inui'Kiiiiil  inciiKiraiKlnm. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  155 

of  the  Members  elected  for  each  House,  and  shall  as  soon  as  may  be  after 
their  Meeting  chuse  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  proceed  to 
execute  this  Constitution.     [Randolph,  VIII,  Addenda.] 

Every  Bill,  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representatives  and 
the  Senate,  shall  before  it  become  a  Law  be  presented  to  the  Governour  of' 
the  United  States  for  his  Revision;  If,  upon  such  Revision,  he  approve  of 
it,  he  shall  signify  liis  Approbation  Ijy  signing  it;  But,  if,  upon  such  revi- 
sion, it»  shall  appear  to  him  improper  for  being  passed  into  a  Law,  he  shall 
return  it,  together  with  his  Objection  against  it  in  Writing,  to  that  House 
in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  01)jection  at  large  on 
their  Journal,  and  proceed  to  reconsider  the  Bill.  But  if  after  such  Recon- 
sideration, two  thirds  of  that  House  shall,  notwithstanding  the  Objections 
of  the  Governour,  agree  to  pass  it;  it  shall  together  with  his  Objections, 
be  sent  to  the  other  House,  by  which  it  shall  likewise  1)e  considered;  and, 
if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  the  other  House  also,  it  shall  be  a  Law.  But 
in  all  such  Cases  the  Votes  of  both  Houses  shall  be  determined  by  Yeas 
and  Xays,  and  the  Names  of  the  Persons  voting  for  or  against  the  Bill  shall 
be  enlisted  in  the  Journal  of  each  House  respectively.  If  any  Bill  sliall 
not  be  returned  by  the  Governour  within  Days  after  it  shall  ha\e 

been  presented  to  him,  it  shall  be  a  Law,  unless  the  Legislatm-e,  l)y  their 
Adjournment,  prevent  its  Return;  in  which  Case  it  shall  be  returned  on 
the  first  Day  of  the  next  ^Meeting  of  the  Legislature.  [^Massachusett^on- 
stitntion  of  1780,  Cli.  I,  Sect.  I,  Art.  II.]" 

In  all  Disputes  and  Conti-oversies  now  sul)sisting,  or  that  may  hereafter 
subsist  between  two  or  more  States,  the  Senate  shall  possess  the  following 
Powers.  Whenever  the  Legislature,  or  the  Executive  Authority,  or  the' 
lawful  Agent  of  any  State  in  Controversy  with  another  shall  by  Memorial 
to  the  Senate,  state  the  ^lattt'r  in  Question,  and  apjily  for  a  Hearing, 
Notice  of  such  Memorial  and  Api)lication  shall  be  given  by  Order  of  the 
Senate  to  the  Legislature  or  the  Ivxet'utive  Authority  of  the  other  State  in 
Controversy.  The  Senate  shall  also  assign  a  Day  for  the  Appearance  of 
the  Parties  by  their  Agents  before  that  House.  The  Agents  shall  be 
directed  to  appoint  l)y  joint  Consent  Commissioners  or  Judges  to  consti- 
tute a  Court  for  hearing  and  determining  tl;e  ^Matter  in  (^lestion.  But  if 
the  Agents  cannot  agree,  the  Senate  shall  name  three  Persons  out  of  each  - 
of  the  several  States,  and  from  the  List  of  such  Persons  each  Party  shall 
alternately  strike  out  one  until  the  Number  shall  be  reduced  to  thirteen; 
and  from  that  Nund)er  not  less  than  seven,  nor  more  than  nine  Names,  as 
the  Senate  shall  direct,  shall,  in  their  Presence,  be  drawn  out  by  Lot;  and 
the  Persons,  whose  names  shall  be  so  drawn,  or  any  live  of  them,  shall  be 
Conunissioners  or  Judges  to  hear  and  iinally  determine  tlie  Controversy; 
provided  a  major  Part  of  the  Judges,  who  shall  hear  the  Cause,  agree  in 
the  Determination.  If  either  Party  shall  neglect  to  attend  at  the  Day 
assigned,  without  shewing  suliicient  Reasons  for  not  attending,  or,  being 
present,  shall  refuse  to  strike,  the  Senate  shall  proceed  to  nominate  three 
Persons  out  of  each  State,  and  the  Secretary  or  Clerk  of  the  Senate  shall 
strike  in  Behalf  of  the  Party  absent  or  refusing.     If  any  of  tiie  Parties  shall 


"A  Massachusetts  iiimi,  (Jorlmm,  wiis  a  iiionibur  of  llio  Coiiiinittrc  of  Detail. 


ir)(>  AISIKKH'AN     II1ST<)HI(^\L    ASSOCIATION. 

i-ffusr  to  suluiiil  tu  the  Aul liorit y  < if  siicli  Coiirl,  or  sliall  not  appear  to 
prosiH'uto  or  (IclViid  tlicir  Claim  (irCausc;  the  Court  sliall  nevertheless 
proceed  to  pronounct'  .lud^meiit.  The  .Indgnient  shall  be  final  and  con- 
clusive. Tlie  Proceed i litis  shall  l>e  tiansniitted  to  the  President  of  the 
"Senat*',  and  shall  he  lodtred  anion<i  the  jniblic  Records  for  the  security  of 
the  Parties  coiu'i'rned.  Every  Conniiissioner  shall  before  he  sit  in  Jndg- 
jnent,  take  an  Oath,  to  be  administered  by  one  of  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  or  Superior  Court  of  tlu'  State,  where  the  Cause  shall  be  tried, 
"well  and  truly  to  hear  and  determine  the  Matter  in  Question,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  his  Judgment,  without  Favour,  Affection  or  Hope  of 
Reward."     [Articles  of  Confederation,  IX.]" 

All  ( 'onti'oversies  concerning  lands^claimed  under  different  Grants  of  two 
or  more  States,  whose  Jurisdictions,  as  they  respect  such  Lands,  shall  have 
been  decided  or  adjusted  subsequent  to  such  Grants,  shall,  on  Apj>lication 
to  the  Senate,  be  finally  determined,  as  near  as  may  be,  in  the  same  Man- 
ner as  is  before  prescribed  for  deciding  Controversies  between  different 
States,     [.\rticles  of  Confederation,  IX.] 

B. 

The  later  and  more  finished  of  Wilson's  two  drafts  differ.s 
so  little  from  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Detail  that  the 
easiest  way  to  give  a  notion  of  its  contents  is  to  state  seriatuii 
the  alterations  which  one  would  have  to  make  in  the  latter 
document''  in  order  to  reproduce,  with  almost  verbal  exact- 
ness, the  text  of  the  former.      rhey  are  but  eleven  in  number: 

1.  Article  III  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Detail, 
omit:  "  The  Leofislature  shall  meet  on  the  first  Mondav  in 
December  every  year."" 

2.  Article  \W  transpose  section  7  and  the  last  half  of 
section  0. 

3.  Article  V,  section  l.omit:  "Vacancies. may  be  supplied 
by  the  Executive  until  the  next  meeting-  of  the  Legislature." 

4.  Article  VII,  section  1,  after  the  twelfth  clause,  add: 
"and  of  Treason  against  tiie  U,  S.  or  any  of  them;  Not  to 
work  Corruption  of  Blood  or  Forfeit,  except  during  the  Life 
of  the  Ptirty;  to  regulate  the  nisci])line  of  the  Militia  of  the 
several  States;*' 

5.  Article  VII,  section  2,  omit  (except  in  so  far  as  it  is  rep- 
resented by  the  clauses  just  mentioned). 

6.  Article  VII,  section  8,  omit:  "  except  Indians  not  paying 
taxes." 


a  For  a  suggestion  as  to  the  origin  of  this  provi.sion,  see  my  Essays  in  the  Constitutional 
History  of  the  United  States,  pp.  44,  4.'). 
6  As  given  in  the  Documentary  History,  III,  444-458. 


THE    B'EDERAL    (ONVENTKIN    OE    17S7.  157 

7.  After  that  section  add:  "'From  the  first  Meeting  of  the 
Legislature  until  the  Number  of  Citizens  and  Inhabitants 
shall  be  taken  as  aforesaid,  direct  Taxation  shall  be  in  Pro- 
portion to  the  Number  of  Representatives  chosen  in  each 
State."" 

8.  Article  X.  section  2,  ad  tin.,  the  reading  is:  "'until 
another  President  of  the  United  States  be  chosen,  or  until  the 
President  impeached  or  disabled  be  acquitted  or  his  Disability 
be  removed;"  and  in  the  preceding  clause  impeachment  is 
mentioned. 

9.  After  Article  X,  add:  ''AH  Commissions.  Patents  and 
Writs  shall  be  in  the  Name  of  '  the  United  States  of  America.'" 

10.  Article  XI,  section  1,  omit:    "when  necessary."' 

11.  Article  XIII,  omit:  *"or  mak<>  anything  but  specie  a 
tender  in  payment  of  del)ts.""  The  other  clauses  of  Articles 
XII  and  XIII  are  present  in  the  Wilson  draft,  but  arranged  in 
a  dili'crent  order  and  placed  as  one  article  (No.  1(»)  immedi- 
ately after  that  which  prescribes  the  suprenjacy  of  the  federal 
law,  corresponding  to  Article  VIII  of  the  committee's  report. 

IX.  MEMBERS  WHO  DID  NOT  SIGN. 

Seventy-three  delegates  were  elected  to  the  Convention. « 
Of  these,  18  did  not  attend.  Of  the  55  who  attended,  the 
signatures  of  only  '6[)  appear  at  the  end  of  the  document. 
Among  the  16  whose  names  arc  not  found  there,  Elbridge 
Gerry,  Luther  Martin,'^  (Jeorge  Mason,  and  Kdnnuul  Ran- 
dolph, it  is  familiar,  refused  to  sign.  The  object  of  the  pres- 
ent in([uiry  is  to  explain  the  absence  of  the  other  ill  names. 
This  may  not  be  entirely  useless  if  it  is  still  possible  to  say, 
as  is  said  in  one  of  the  most  elaborate  accounts  of  the  work  of 
the  Convention,  that  they  all  declined  to  affix  their  signatures.'' 
In  reality,  all  12  were  absent  when  th(>,  instrument  w^as  signed; 
and  there  is  evidence  that  7  a[)prov('d  of  it,  and  no  evidence 
that  any  but  3  of  the  12  opposed  it. 

«Thc  list  which  Secretary  Adams  published  in  the  Journal  of  1819,  pp.  13-15,  contains 
but  05  names.  Mr.  Paul  Ford  printed  what  is  presumed  to  be  a  complete  list  (7:!  uiinies: 
he  says  74)  in  the  Collector  for  Sei)tember  and  October,  1888.  Tliis  was  reprinted  as  a 
separate  pamphlet,  Brooklyn.  1.HS8;  also  in  Draper's  Essay  on  the  Autographic  Collections 
of  the  Si;,'n(Ts,  pp.  111-117;  in  Wisonsin  Historical  Society  Collections,  X:  in  Carson's 
History  of  the  Celebration  of  tlie  Hundredth  Anniversary  of  the  Constitution,  I,  l;i5ss.; 
and  in  my  Dictionary  of  United  Stat<'s  History,  p.  1<'>:!. 

'-Martin  says  that  he  left  I'hihidelphia  on  Septeinhcr  I.  Lfllci- (o  Ihi'  Maryland  . lour- 
iial  in  Ford,  Ks.says on  the  Constitution.  i..:;il.     "  I.andhoNlcr"  (  Kllswcrth)  says  the  sanu'. 

ibid.,  p.  18G. 

«Thorpc,  Constitutional  Hi>tory  nl  tlic  Cniti-d  Slates,  I.  .'I'.tl. 


158  AAIKKK  AN     HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

'Vhv  li'  iiuMiihers  under  consideration  are  C'aleb  Strono-,  of 
Massachusetts;  01i\-ei'  Kllsworth.  of  Connecticut;  Robert 
Yates  and  John  Lansino-,  of  New  York:  William  C.  Houston, 
of  New  Jersey;  John  Francis  INIercer,  of  Maryland;  George 
Wvtlic  and  James  McClurg,  of  Virg-inia;  Alexander  Martin 
and  William  K.  Davie,  of  North  Carolina;  and  William  Pierce 
and  \\'illiam  Iloustoun,  of  Georgia.  We  will  take  them  up 
in  the  presumed  order  of  their  departure  from  the  Convention. 

Of  Chancellor  Wythe,  Madison  records  in  his  notes  under 
date  of  flune  4  that  he  had  already  gone  home."  His  letter 
of  June  1  ti,  writt(Mi  from  Williamsburg  to  Governor  Randolph, 
shows  that  the  cause  of  his  retirement  was  the  dano-erous  ill- 
ness  of  his  wif(\'''  A  letter  of  July  16  to  Beverley  Randolph, 
the  acting  governor,  shows  that  this  cause,  "the  only  one 
which  could  have  moved  me  to  retire  from  the  Convention,"' 
continued  urgent,  and  he  explained  that  both  these  letters  were 
intended  to  express  his  resignation.''  Mrs.  Wythe's  illness 
proved  fatal.''  His  course  in  the  Virginia  convention  plainly 
evinces  his  ap})roval  of  the  C'onstitution. 

]Maj()r  Pierce  left  the  Convention  about  Jul}'  1.  In  Madi- 
son's notes  and  those  of  Yates  we  find  him  speaking  on  June 
2!>.''  From  July  4  to  August  1,  and  from  August  27  to  Octo- 
ber 1,  he  was  in  attendance  upon  Congress  at  New  York./ 
Two  letters  of  Hamilton  show  the  latter  adjusting  a  difficulty 
and  preventing  a  duel  between  Pierce  and  a  Mr.  Auldjo,  and 
another,  New  York,  July  26,  ITsT,  says:  "He  informs  me  that 
he  is  shortly  to  set  out  on  a  jaunt  up  the  North  River. "  'J  Apart 
from  Congressional  duty  the  reasons  for  his  absence  do  not 
appear.  It  was  not  for  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  honor  of 
a  seat  in  the  Convention.  His  letter  to  St.  George  Tucker, 
written  8eptend)er  28,  says: 

You  will  i)r<)bal>ly  be  .surprised  at  not  finding  my  name  affixed  to  it,  and 
will  no  doubt  l)e  desirous  of  having  a  i-eason  for  it.  Know,  then,  sir,  that 
I  was  absent  in  Xew  York  on  a  piece  of  business  so  necessary  that  it 


«  Documentary  History,  III,  54;  Hunt,  III,  81. 

li  Calendar  of  the  Emmet  Collection,  No.  9.542.  See  also  Randolpli  to  Beverley  Randolph, 
.lune  21,  in  Va.  Cal.  St.  P.,  IV,  29S. 

cBrotherhead,  Centennial  Book  of  the  Signers,  ]>.  257. 

-'Madi.son,  Letter.-^,  I,  339. 

'■  Documentary  History,  III.  211;  Hunt,  111,  320;  Vates,  p.  187:  Elliot,  I,  404. 

/Journals  of  Congress,  IV,  7.50-7G5,  773-7S3;  memoranda  iu  a  manuscript  volume  of  his 
which  I  have  seen.  A  letter  of  his  to  (fardocjui,  dated  New  York,  September  3, 1787,  is  in 
the  New  Jersey  .lourual  for  November  28, 1787,  and  in  Carey's  American  Museum,  II,  583. 

f/ Works,  ed.  Hamilton.  I.  437.  439:  ed.  Lods^'c.  VIII,  17(;,  177,  178. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  159 

became'  unavoidaljle.     I  approve  of  its  principles,  and  would  have  signed 
it  with  all  my  heart  had  I  been  present.* 

Lansing  and  Yates  left  the  Convention  on  or  soon  after  Juh" 
WJ'  P^lliot  sa^^s  July  5.  ■'  But  a  comparison  of  the  journal  of 
the  Convention  with  the  sheets  of  yeas  and  nays  shows  New 
York  castino-  a  vote  through  Julv  10.''  and  there  is  other 
though  not  conclusive  evidence  that  Yates  was  present  on 
July  9.'  The  attitude  of  these  two  toward  the  Constitution  is 
well  known. 

William  C.  Houston,  of  New  Jersey,  is  not  known  to  hav(> 
been  present  after  July  17,  if  then.  He  spoke  then,  if  the 
indexer  of  the  third  volume  of  the  Documentary  History  is 
rio'ht  in  attributing  certain  remarks  made  that  day  to  him 
rather  than  to  William  Houstoun,  of  Georgia;  as  to  this  no 
evidence  is  known  to  the  present  writer.'  He  is  not  stated  to 
have  spoken  on  any  other  occasion.  Pierce,  in  his  descrip- 
tions of  the  members,  omits  his  name.^/  Mr.  Thorpe,  perhaps 
on  local  New  Jersey  evidence,  says  that  he  withdrew  on  account 
of  ilhiess.'' 

Doctor  McClurg  was  present  on  Jidy  20.'  Hut  on  August 
5  he  writes  to  Madison  from  Richmond.''  In  a  later  unprintod 
letter  to  Madison,  written  on  October  81,  he  discusses  the 
Constitution.'^"  Kives,  probably  on  the  l)asis  of  this  letter, 
says  that  McClurg  favored  it.' 

William  Houstoun,  of  Georgia,  was  present  till  -Inly  '24."* 

Davie  does  not  appear  in  the  proceedings  after  duly  26.'* 
On  Aueust  6  he  writes  to  Iredell  that  he  shall  U'av(>  on  Mon- 
day,  which  would  mean  August  13,"  and  on  August  28  he 
writes  to  Governor  Caswell  from  Halifax,  N.  C.,  saying  that 


a  Georgia  Gazette,  March  20,  1788;  American  Historical  Review,  111,  SI  1. 

() Bancroft,  II,  75;  Martin,  in  Elliot,  I,  358. 

'■I,  479. 

''Documentary  History,  I,  86,  250. 

'■Appointment  of  Yates  on  a  committee.     l>')cuineiHiuy  History,  I,  St.  299. 

/Documentary  History,  III,  358;   Hunt,  III,  -155.    Madi.son  spells  tlie  two  imines  tlie 

same. 

(/American  Historiiial  Review,  III,  327. 

/i  Constitutional  History  of  tlie  United  States,  I,  .591. 

'Documentary  History,  III,  389. 

7 Bulletin  of  the  Bureau  of  Rolls  and  l.ihniry.  I:  1.H7. 

/vlbid. 

/  Lift!  of  .Itunes  Madison,  II,  2.53. 

Ill  Documentary   History,  III,    111.     Internal   evidence  shows   nearly  all    the  remarks 
which  Madison  credits  to  "  Mr.  Houston"  to  have  been  maiie  by  a  (ieorRia  member. 

"  Documentary  History.  Ill,  i:!l. 

oMcRec,  II,  1G8. 


1()()  AMKHICAN    HlsroHlCAL    ASbOCIATlON.  '    . 

ho  hiul  left  rhil:uloli)hi:i  on  tlu>  loth."  In  the  North  Carolina 
convention  ho  showed  his  approval  of  the  Constitution. 

Strong-  was  present  on  August  15.''  That  he  loft  Phihidol- 
phia  before  Au.i>ust  :i^  is  apparent  from  the  letter  of  Gorham 
printed  above — No.  -i  in  Section  II.  Senator  Lodge  states 
that  ho  was  called  homo  t)y  illness  in  his  family.^'  In  Parsons's 
notes  wo  lincl  him  saying  in  the  Massachusetts  convention  that 
"through  sickness  he  was  ol)ligo(I  to  return  home,  but  had  he 
been  there  he  should  have  signed"  the  Constitution.''  He 
v^oted  for  its  ratification. 

Mercer  was  present  from  August  0  to  August  17/  In  the 
Maryland  convention  ho  voted  against  ratification  of  the 
Constitution. 

(tovornor  Martin,  of  North  Carolina,  was  in  Philadelphia 
as  late  as  August  20,  but  expected  to  leave  on  Soptoml)or  1, 
having  to  attend  the  superior  court  in  Salisbury  in  that 
month.'     He  favored  ratitication. 

Judge  Ellsworth  was  present  in  the  Convention  on  August 
23.^  Jeremiah  Evarts,  in  his  sketch  of  the  life  of  Roger 
Sherman,  in  Sanderson's  Lives  of  the  Signers,  explains  that, 
Sherman  and  Ellsworth  both  being  judges  of  the  superior 
court  of  Connecticut,  Sherman  had  to  be  absent  from  the 
Convention  at  its  beginning,  Ellsworth  at  its  end.''  Ellsworth 
visited  President  Stiles  at  New"  Haven  on  August  27,  on  his 
way  home.*  That  he  approved  of  the  Constitution  is  evident 
from  the  letter  which  ho  and  Sherman  wrote  to  the  governor 
from  New  London  on  September  26  J  and  from  his  speeches 
in  the  Connecticut  convention. 

That  Dickinson,  though  his  name  appears  upon  the  docu- 
ment, was  absent  on  the  last  day,  has  been  shown  in  a  preced- 
ing portion  of  these  studies  (p.  97). 

•'  North  Caroliiifi  State  Records,  XX,  766.  Pitkin  says,  II,  262,  that  he  has  been  assured 
that  Davie,  Strong,  and  Ellsworth  would  have  signed  if  they  could  have  stayed  to 
the  end. 

l>  Documentary  History,  III,  535. 

oMass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  I.  290. 

''  Debates  of  the  Massachusetts  Convention,  ed.  l.s.56,  p.  316. 

''Documentary  History,  I,  112;  III,  444,  555.  Mr.  Ford  (Draper,  p.  116)  says  that  Mercer 
left  on  September  4. 

/North  Carolina  Records,  XX,  763. 

f/  Documentary  History,  III,  G02. 

''Signers,  II,  44. 

'Literary  Diary  of  President  Stiles,  III,  271». 

JCarey's  American  Museum,  II,  431,  135;  Kllioi,  r,  191,  492. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    17S7.  HM 

X.  THE  ACTION  OF  THE  STATES. 

The  following-  paragraphs  show,  foi-  each  State,  the  dates  of 
the  sessions  of  its  legislature  which  intervened  ])etween  Sep- 
tember IT,  1787,  when  the  Philadelphia  Convention  adjourned, 
and  the  date  of  the  ratilication  of  the  Constitution  by  that 
State;  also  the  official  or  formal  materials—journals  and  de- 
bates—for a  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  those  sessions. 

JVew  Hampshire. — Four  sessions.  The  "•Proceedings  of  the 
Honorable  Senate"  and  the  "Legislative  Journals  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire"  were 
contemporaneously  printed  at  Portsmouth.  They  ha\e  been 
reprinted  in  Volume  XXI  of  the  New  Hampshiic  State  Papers. 
The  resolution  for  calling  a  convention  was  passed  on  Decem- 
ber 14,  1787. 

September  12-29,  1787.     New  Hampshire  State  rai)ers,  XXI,  89-106 

(S.);  109-143  (H.  R.). 
December  5-15,  1787.     New  Hampshire  Stati^  Papers,  XXI,  145-l.i4 

(S.);  155-169  (H.  R.). 
January  23  to  February  13,   1788.     New   Hainpsliire  State  Papers, 

Xxf,  171-194  (S.);  195-232  (H.  R.). 
June  4-18,   1788.     New   Hampshire  State  Papers.     XXI,   261-286 

(S.);  287-331  (H.  R.). 

MassacJiusetts. — One  session,  the  second  of  the  existing  leg- 
islature, October  17  to  November  24:,  1787.  Its  journals  exist 
only  in  manuscript,  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. The  legislative  proceedings  of  the  General  Coui't 
relati\e  to  the  new  Constitution  are,  however,  printed  in  the 
nel)ates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  1788,  ed.  185(). 
The  joint  resolution  for  holding  the  convention  was  passed  on 
October  25, 1787,  and  is  printed  in  the  Documentar}^  History, 
II,  91-92. 

Rhode  Island. — Fifteen  sessions,  beginning  respectively  on 
October  29,  1787;  February  25,  March  ?>i.  May  7,  June  9, 
October  27,  December  29,  1788;  March  9,  .May  •'..  June  8, 
September  15,  October  12,  October  28,  1789;  January  11  and 
May  5,  1790.  Their  "Schedules,"  or  "Acts  and  Resolves," 
resembling  a  journal  in  character,  were  printed  contempora- 
neously. Extracts  from  them,  cnihracing  what  is  most  im- 
portant to  the  present  purpose,  ai'(^  ])rinted  in  (he  colonial 
records  of  Rhode  Mnnd.  X.  202-37'.'.  The  resolve  for  hold- 
ing a  convention  was  passed  on  January  1  T.  17'.»(>. 
H.  Doc.  401,  pt  1 U 


1()2  AMKKU'AX     lllSTOKU^VL    ASSOCIATION. 

Oon)U'cfici/t.—0\n^  session,  October  11  to  Novcnilxn-  1,  1787, 
of  whicli  tluMc  :irr  no  printod  journals.  The  resolve  for  hold- 
ing- the  convention  was  passed  on  October  16. 

yor  Voi'l-. — One  session,  January  1"  to  March  22,  17SS. 
The  Journal  of  the  Senate  and  the  Journal  of  the  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  New  York  were  contemporaneously  printed, 
but  have  not  been  reprinted.  The  resolution  for  holding  a 
convention  was  passed  on  Fe))ruarv  1,  1788. 

New  Jersey. ^Ona  session,  October  23  to  November  7,  1787. 
The  Journal  of  the  Council,  Twelfth  Session,  First  Sitting,  and 
the  Votes  of  the  Twelfth  Assembly,  First  Sitting,  were  contem- 
poi-aneouslv  printed  at  Trenton.  The  convention  was  called 
l)y  virtue  of  a  resolution  of  October  2I>,  1787,^'  and  an  act  of 
November  1,  l)oth  of  which  will  be  found  printed  in  the  Doc- 
umentary History  of  the  Constitution,  II,  61,  62. 

Pennsylvania. — Two  sessions.  Third  session  of  the  eleventh 
assembly,  Septem})er  1-20,  1787;  first  session  of  the  twelfth 
assemlily ,  October  22  to  November  29, 1787.  Their  journals — 
c.  "•.,  Minutes  of  the  First  Session  of  the  Twelfth  General 
Assembly  of  the  ConuuonAvealth  of  Pennsylvania — were 
printed  contemporaneously  in  Philadelphia.  For  debates, 
see  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
Pennsylvania,  taken  in  shorthand  by  Thomas  Lloyd,  Phila- 
delphia, 1787;  Carey's  American  Museum,  II,  362-366;  and 
McMaster  and  Stone,  Pennsylvania  and  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. i)p.  27-72.  The  resolution  for  calling  a  convention  was 
passed.  l»y  Avell-known  means,  on  September  29,  1787.  An 
act  for  the  members'  compensation  Avas  passed  on  Novem- 
ber K). 

Delaware. — One  session,  which  legally  began  on  October 
20,  1787  (but  there  was  no  quorum  till  October  25),  and  which 
ended  November  10.  The  Minutes  of  the  Council  of  the  Dela- 
ware State  from  1776  to  1792  were  printed  at  Wilmington  in 
1888,  as  No.  6  of  the  Papers  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Dela- 
ware. The  Votes  and  Proceedings  of  the  House  of  Assembly 
of  the  Dehnvare  State  were  (1787)  printed  at  Wilmington. 
The  resolution  for  calling  a  conv(Mition  was  passed  Novem- 
ber 10. 

"But  there  was  no  <iiioruni  in  the  Assembly  till  .lannary  >i,  nor  in  the  Senate  till  Janu- 
ary 11. 

''  Bancroft,  Constitution,  II,  iVJ,  says  '•  on  the  2lith  ;  "  hut  Ihe  above  rtate  is  given  in  the 
Doe.  Hist.,  uhi  sup.,  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Convention  and  in  the  New  Jersey  Journal. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    17ST.  163 

2f<iryla)ul. — One  session,  November  5"  to  December  17, 
1787.  The  journals  of  the  senate  and  house  of  delegates  were 
printed  in  1787.  Of  the  debates,  we  have  the  speech  of  Luther 
]Martin, first  printed,  from  the  notes  of  '"a  customer,"  in  the 
Maryland  Gazette  and  Baltimore  Advertiser,  December  28, 

1787,  to  February  8,  1788;  then  in  the  State  Gazette  of  South 
Carolina,  and  probal)ly  in  other  newspapers;  then  as  a  pamph- 
let. The  Genuine  Information  delivered  to  the  Leg-islature  of 
the  State  of  Maryland,  relative  to  the  Proceeding's  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  latelv  held  at  Philadelphia,  by  Luther  Martin, 
Philadelphia,  1788  (Ford,  11!));  reprinted  in  Yates,  Secret 
Proceedings,  Albany,  1821,  Washington,  18o(i,  and  the  other 
editions;  and  in  Elliot's  Debates,  first  ed..  Vol.  IV;  third  ed., 
Vol.  1.  The  vote  foi-  calling  a  convention  passed  the  house 
on  November  27,  the  senate  on  December  1. 

Virginia. — One  session,  October  15,  1787,  to  January  8, 

1788.  The  journals  of  the  senate  and  house  of  delegates  were 
printed  contemporaneouslv,  and  also  in  1828,  at  Richmond. 
The  debate  of  October  25  is  reported  in  Miss  Rowland's  George 
Mason,  II,  190-191,  from  the  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  Novem- 
ber 10.  A  resolution  for  calling  a  convention  was  passed  by 
the  house  on  October  25,  1TS7,  amended  by  the  senate,  and 
hnall\-  passed  on  October  31.  An  act  respecting  the  conven- 
tion was  passed  on  December  12.     Ilening,  XII,  162. 

Ncyrth  Carolina. — Three  sessions.  The  journals  of  the  sen- 
ate and  house  of  commons  are  to  be  found  either  in  Vol.  XX 
of  the  State  Records  of  North  Carolina  or  in  contemporary^ 
print. 

Noveml)er  19-Deceml)er  22,   17S7.     Journals   (8.,  H.  C.)in   N.  C. 

Rec,  XX. 
November  3-December  v),  1788.     Journals  (S.)  N.  C.  Kec,    XX; 

(H.  C.)  Edenton,  1788. 
November  2-22,  1789.     Journals  (S.,  H.  C),  Edenton,  1789. 

The  first  convention  was  called  by  virtue  of  a  resolution  of 
December  (>,  1787;  the  second,  by  one  of  November  17,  1788. 

South  Carolina. — One  session,  Jaiuiary  8  to  February  29, 
1788.  The  journals  remain  in  manuscript  in  the  office  of  the 
secretary  of  state  at  Coliunl)ia.  Of  the  debates,  we  have: 
Debates  which  arose  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  South 
Carolina  on  tlio  Constitution  frauuMl  foi-  the  I'nited  States  ))y 


<i  There  was  no  quorum  in  the  house  till  November  14,  nor  in  the  senate  till  Novem- 
ber 22. 


164  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

:i  Coii\'(Mi(i()ii  of  n(>l('o-!ites  asscinl)led  !it  Pliiliidolphiii;  Charles- 
ton, I'olkH'ttHl  by  li.  nasw(>ll  and  pul)lished  at  the  City  (lazetto, 
Printino-  ()(Hc(>.  No.  47  Bay.  ITSS  (Ford  15ti).  This  pamphlet 
was  roprintrd  with  additions  in  \s:ii  (Ford  153),  and  in  the 
third  ("second")  edition  of  KUiot's  Dc})ates,  IV,  253-317. 
The  resolution  for  callinu'  the  convention  was  passed  on  Janu- 
ary r,),  1788;  the  ordinance  giving-  the  members  the  usual 
privileges,  etc.,  on  Fel)ruary  29. 

Georgia. — One  session,  July  3  to  October  31, 1787.  Another 
l)egan  on  January  1,  1788,  the  day  before  ratification.  The 
journals  are  in  manuscript  in  the  ofHce  of  the  secretary  of  state. 
The  resolution  for  calling  the  convention  was  passed  on  Octo- 
ber 20,  1787,  and  is  printed  in  Documentarj-  History,  II,  83. 

XI.  JOURNALS  AND  DEBATES  OF  THE  STATE  CONVENTIONS. 

The  formal  or  official  journal  has  not  in  all  cases  been 
})rinted,  ])ut  the  volumes  of  debates  usually  contain,  as  inci- 
dental to  their  main  purpose,  nuich  of  the  material  appropri- 
ate to  a  journal.  In  the  case  of  the  rarer  publications  1  have 
referred  by  number  to  Mr.  Ford's  Bibliography,  where  fuller 
titles,  and  sometimes  notes,  may  be  found. 

NEW    HAMPSHIRE. 

./.»//,•//.//.— Historical  Magazine,  XIII,  257-263. 

New  Hampshire  State  Papers,  X,  1-22. 
Debate?.— (Fragments.)     Elliot,  Debates,  third  ed.,  II,  203-204. 

Thomas  C.  Amory,   The  iSIilitary  Services  and  Publicr  Life  of 

Maj.  Gen.  John  Sullivan,  pp.  230-231. 
Joseph  B.  Walker,  History  of  the  New  Hampshire  Convention, 
pp.  112-116. 

MASS.\CHUSETTS. 

Jourudl. — In  Debates,  ed.  1856. 

Debates.  —Debates,  Resolutions,  and  other  Proceedings  of  the  Convention 
of  the  Commonwealth  (jf  ^Massachusetts,  Boston,  1788.  (Ford, 
122.) 

American  :Museum,  III,  343-362. 

Debates,  Resolutions,  and  other  Proceedings,  Boston,  1808. 
(Ford,  123.) 

Elliot,  Debates,  first  ed.,  I,  25-184. 

Elliot,  Debates,  third  ed.,  II,  1-202. 

Debates  and  Proceedings  in  the  Convention  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts,  Boston,  1856.  (Contains  the  mate- 
rial which  was  in  the  editions  of  1788  and  1808,  and  also  tlie 
official  journal  and  the  notes  of  Theophilus  Parsons.) 

Notes  of  Jeremy  P.elknap,  in  .Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc,  III,  296-304. 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  165 


KllODE    If>L.VN'J). 


Jouni(tl.~\y.  K.  .Staple^^,  Rhode  Island  in  tlic  Continental  Congress,  pp. 
640-674.  (Contains  also  some  notes  of  the  debates;  see  ex- 
planation on  p.  644. ) 


CONNECTICUT. 

Debates. — ( Fragments. )     American  ]\lnseani ,  111,  ;!:;4-.S43  ( Ellsworth ) ;  IV, 
167-170. 
Elliot,  Debates,  third  ed.,  II,  185-202. 

G.  H.  Hollister,  History  of  Connecticut,  II,  456-460  (Ellsworth). 
Frank  Moore,  American  Eloquence,  I,  404-409  (Ellsworth) 

NKW    YOKK. 

Journal. — Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  New  York,  Pough- 

keepsie,  1788.     (Ford,  130.) 
Debater. — The  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  New  Y^ork,  1788.     (Ford,  129.) 
American  Museum,  IV,  172-173  (G.  Livingston). 
Elliot,  Debates,  first  ed.,  I,  185-358;  III,  l*-8*  (the  last  a  speech 

by  Tredwell,  never  delivered). 
Elliot,  Debates,  third  ed.,  II,  205-413. 

Hammond,  History  of  Political  Parties,  I,  26-28  (G.  Livingston). 
Hamilton,  Works,  ed.,  J.  C.  Hamilton,  II,  426-46.".  (Hamilton). 
Moore,  American  Eloquence,  I,  187-204  (Hamilton). 
Johnston,  American  Orations,  I,  39-52  (Hamilton). 

NEW    .lERSEV. 

/ournai.— Minutes  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  Trenton, 
1788.  (Ford,  127;  reprinted  at  Trenton  in  1888  by  C.  L. 
Traver. ) 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

JournaZ.— Minutes  of  the  Convention  of  the  Comnnjiiwcalth  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, Philadelphia,  1787.     (Ford,  141.) 
Debates.— The  Substance  of  a  Speech  delivered  by  James  Wilson,  esq., 
Philadelphia,  1787.     (Ford,  168.) 
Debates    of    the    Convention  of    the    State  of    Pennsylvania, 
*    *    *    taken  accurately  in  shorthand  by  Thomas  Lloyd, 
Philadelphia,  1788  (McKcan,  Wilson).     (Ford,  140.) 
Elliot,  Del)ates,  first  ed..  Ill,  221-322. 
Klliot,  Debates,  third  cd.,  II,  415-542. 
Moore,  American  P31oquence,  I,  74-82  (Wilson). 
McMaster  and  Stone,  I'cnnsylvunia  and  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, pp.  211-431  and  (Wilson's  notes)  765-785. 

DELAWARE. 

[Neither  journal  nor  debates  has,  I  believe,  ever  been  published.] 


!(>(>  AMERICAN    HISTORICAL    ASSOCIATION. 

MARYLAND. 
JouriKtI. — DociuneiitHry  llistmy  of  tlie  Constitutiou,  II,  97-122. 

VlUCilNlA. 

./f)/n-»'//.— Journal  of  th(>  (\)nvontion  of  Virtrinia,  Kiohniond,  1827.     (Ford, 

!.■)!» ). 
Debates. — Debates  and  other  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  Virginia, 
Petersburg,  1788,  1789,  three  volumes.  (Ford,  157.)  The 
notes  for  the.so  volumes  were  taken  in  shorthand  by  David 
Robertson,  of  Petersburg.  A  note  on  the  last  page  of  this 
original  edition,  III,  228,  tells  us  that  "The  Gentleman  who 
took  the  foregoing  Debates  in  8hort-Hand,  having  had  but 
an  ineligible  seat  in  the  Gallery,  a  situation  remote  from  the 
speakers,  where  he  was  fre(iuently  interrupted  by  the  noise 
made  l>y  tho.se  who  were  constantly  going  out  and  coming  in, 
is  conscious  that  he  nuist  have  lost  some  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful periods  anil  best  observations  of  the  different  speakers; 
and  is  afraid  that  in  some  instances  he  may  have  misappre- 
hended their  meaning.  *  *  *  He  further  begs  leave  to 
add,  that  his  having  taken  the  Debates  of  the  Convention  of 
North  Carolina,  and  the  pressure  of  his  other  avocations  dis- 
uliled  him  from  furnishing  the  Printers  with  so  fair  a  copy 
as  he  would  otherwise  have  done.  He  was  only  able  to 
give  him  a  rough  transcription  from  the  Short-Hand  origi- 
nal," and  could  not  read  the  proofs.  Rives,  II,  586,  says  that 
Madison's  speeches  were  not  revised  by  him  and  that  he 
presumes  none  of  the  others  were  revised  by  their  authors, 
unless  Monroe's  first  speech. 

Debates  and  other  Proceedings  of  the  Convention  of  Virginia, 
Richmond,  1805.  For  this  second  edition  Robertson  corrected 
his  text  and  compared  it  in  part  with  the  original  shorthand 
notes. 

Elliot,  Debates,  first  ed..  Vol.  II;  third  ed..  Vol.  III.  (From 
the  above. )  When  Elliot  was  preparing  his  first  edition  he 
offered  Madison  the  chance  to'  revise  his  speeches  as  given  by 
Robertson;  but  Madison  did  not  think  it  fair  to  the  others 
when  forty  years  had  elapsed.  See  his  letter  of  November, 
1827.     Letters,  III,  598. 

Moore,  American  Eloquence,  I,  13-39  (Henry),  127-144  (Madi- 
son), 165-173  (Randolph),  II,  10-20  (Marshall). 

Johnston,  American  Orations,  I,  53-71  (Madison). 

'  NORTH    CAROLINA. 

JiiuvmiU. — (First  convention.)    Journal  of  the  Convention  of  North  Caro- 
lina, Hillsborough,  1788. 
(Second  convention.)     Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  State 
of  North  Carolina,  Edenton  [1789].     (Ford,  135;  reprinted  in 
the  State  Chronicle  of  Raleigh,  November  15,  1889.) 


THE    FEDERAL    CONVENTION    OF    1787.  167 

Lkhutes. — (First  convention. )  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Convention 
of  North  Carolina,  Edenton,  1789.  (Ford,  137.)  "A  Mr. 
RolMnson  [Rol>ertson]  attended  the  convention  as  stenogra- 
pher. The  FederaHsts  were  desirous  that  the  debates  should 
be  published.  *  *  *  At  their  instance  Iredell  and  Davie 
assumed  the  responsibility  and  care  of  the  publication.  Neat 
copies  were  made  in  Edenton  by  Mr.  Lorimer  (an  English- 
man) from  the  notes  of  the  reporter;  and  as  far  as  practicable 
the  speeches  were  submitted  to  their  authors  for  correction. 
This  enterprise  involved  Iredell  and  Davie  in  some  pecuniary 
loss.  *  *  *  Thedebates  were  printed  at  Edenton  by  I  lodge 
and  Wills,  and  made  their  appearance  about  the  last  of  June, 
1789.  One  thousand  copies  were  published."  McRee,  Life 
of  Iredell,  II,  28.5. 

Elliot,  Debates,  first  ed..  Ill,  17-220. 

Elliot,  Debates,  third  ed.,  IV,  1-252. 

(Second  convention.)  Fragments  in  newspapers,  according  to 
Mr.  Ford. 

SOUTH    CAROLINA. 

Debutes.  —State  Gazette,  of  South  Carolina,  May,  1788.    (Pinckney's  speech 

at  the  opening,  May  14.) 
American    Museum,     IV,     170-172     (two    speeches),     256-26;; 

(Charles  Pinckney's  speech  of  May  14). 
Debates  which  arose  in  the  House  of  Representatives  [as  above, 

pp.  163,164].     Together  with  such  notices  of  the  Conventinn 

as  could  be  procured.     C'harleston,  A.  E.  Miller,  18."!1. 
Elliot,  Debates,  tliinl  ed.,  IV.,  318-.341. 

GEOlUilA. 

[Nothing  of  either  journal  or  debates  is  known  to  liave  been  printed, 
unless  in  some  contemporary  newspaper  outside  the  State;  the  Ceorgia 
newspapers  seem  to  have  nothing  of  the  sort.] 


